Range-challenged electric vehicles could face further sales disincentives with a proposal from Britain’s top engineers that battery sizes be reduced by one third. In a just-published report on the supply of critical materials for Net Zero projects, the U.K.-based National Engineering Policy Centre (NEPC) points to an obvious fact – there isn’t anything like the amount of raw materials available to transition to Net Zero and most of the extraction processes required are an ecological disaster. The report sets out in terrifying black and white what is coming down the future political rationing track. The lack of resources to replace cheap and plentiful hydrocarbons is also noted in a new McKinsey report, which states that critical minerals face a supply shortage “as demand soars for raw materials to fuel [the] clean energy drive”. Current mineral supply could be as low as 10% of projected 2050 requirements, McKinsey suggests.
The NEPC brings together 42 engineering operations and is led by the Royal Academy of Engineering. Its report calls for “upstream mobility policies” to reduce transport demand via a shift from cars to buses, bikes and electric scooters operating in tandem with smaller batteries and alternative battery chemistries. The cynical might read this to mean that fanatical politicians such as the Mad Miliband mandate reduced EV range and throw further billions of pounds at yet more unproven technologies while ramping up the war on motorists.
The range of most EVs is not much cop to start with. Neil Winton is a senior contributor with Forbes and has looked in detail at the claimed ranges of EVs. He is not impressed with the figures supplied by manufacturers, writing recently that the Lexus RZ 300s, which retails at $71,350, has a claimed range of “up to“ 297 miles, but the battery only filled to an average of 224 miles. The problem is that range falls off a cliff at high speed, reports Winton. Sustainability Professor Peter Wells explains: “For an electric car, the extra energy required getting from 60 mph to 75 mph is astonishing and virtually doubles energy consumption to move all that air out of the way.”
Cutting battery size by a third or using low energy-density sodium batteries, as suggested by the NEPC, risks producing cars no one wants to buy. The only solution would be rationing using restrictions mandated by law. Of course, many such restrictions are already in force across Europe, where the traditional car industry and its large numbers of well paid jobs are being slowly destroyed.
The penny has been dropping about the obvious shortages of critical Net Zero resources for some time, although the public is mostly kept in the dark by the Net Zero-captured mainstream media. EVs are a particularly significant source of anticipated demand for critical materials, observes the NEPC, and a reduction in battery size could save 46,000 tonnes of lithium. This would stop the excavation of 75,000,000 tonnes of earth, enough to fill Wembley Stadium 19 times.
On the wider front, the NEPC says that developing new extraction infrastructure is slow and often risks worsening environmental and social harms. In the Baotou region of China, described as the rare earth capital of the world, toxic waste has contaminated groundwater. This has ended the local ecosystem’s ability to support agriculture and cattle rearing and necessitated the resettlement of whole villages. “Such pollution impacts can last for decades or centuries,” the report notes.
Over at McKinsey, the green light is being signalled for greens to dig up the planet to save Mother Earth from topping up CO2 plant food in the atmosphere. McKinsey reveals that demand for seven minerals could double in the next five years. These comprise lithium, cobalt, nickel, dysprosium, terbium, neodymium and praseodymium. Each is noted to serve specific functions in “clean” energy applications. Lithium demand could face a 700% surge. Significant shortfalls are forecast across multiple minerals by 2030. Supply of dysprosium – used in magnets for EVs and wind turbines – and terbium – useful in display electronics – could fall 75% below demand. Lithium, ubiquitous in batteries, may see its production targets fall by 40%.
Nowhere do the figures remotely add up. Indeed it is hard to comprehend the level of stupidity involved in those who plan the Net Zero disaster with no idea where the materials will come from or the costs involved. McKinsey writes of a significant scale-up of extraction but the energy transition is said to be in its early stages with “only an estimated 10% of required deployment of low-emission technologies by 2050 achieved in most areas”. In other words, it can only get worse.
There are also concerns about the geographic concentration of critical materials affecting the resilience of supply chains. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 75% of cobalt, while China processes 60% of all rare earth elements. Again to use other words, we must hope that greens don’t develop a conscience about child mining labour in the DRC, while the rest of us must desist from making disobliging remarks about the Chinese Communist Party.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
Might there be any countries for which the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
Wouldn’t that be most countries outside Europe?
I suppose the questions might be:
Does the conflict lead to increased exports?
Does the conflict lead to opportunities to take advantage of a distracted West?
Well, how about those that will benefit form selling Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)? According to the Beeb world propaganda radio, most of the plant for processing LNG is in eastern England, with pipelines across to Belgium & the Netherlands. Apparently even Australia is a potential source, also Canada, as well as the middle east. So, it’s likely that a fair bit will arrive here by sea, then converted to gas and exported to the mainland.
I’m not sure what the currency is, but spot the cash flow into HMG.
I think that may be the wrong question.
It assumes that the actions of countries are taken for the benefit of those countries, meaning, the people of those countries. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the state power of countries is hijacked by interest groups who use it for their purpose and benefit.
So the more accurate question, I think, may be: are there those for whom the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
I am ever more certain that thinking of countries as monolithic units with a common interest only serves to confuse and muddle any attempt to understand what is really going on.
No…the fact that the EU is the second biggest economy after the USA, and is now an economic basket-case…can’t possibly help the US…..?
….and that the USA has become the largest LNG exporter in 2022, driven by European demand….…can’t possibly help the US…?
…and that the same US just might have had a teensy-weensy involvement in fomenting said conflict?
Just coincidence…LOL….!
A case of the US economy tanking & taking out the European one so that the NWO can be more easily installed.
Quite possibly, there were several scenarios when planning this campaign with Ukraine falling quickly being just one of them. But Moscow were negotiating from day one with not unreasonable demands well short of requesting full capitulation of Kiev.
Without negating the bravery of ordinary ukrainian soldiers, the task set for the russian military was extremely difficult. It had to target military objects, spare civilian lives and infrastructure trying not to alienate Ukrainian population while undertaking full scale military operation. Russia couldn’t just carpet bomb starting with Kiev thus decapitating the country. You also can’t dismiss ruinous errors and corruption on the russian side.
Is Ukraine holding for all this time against Russia a blessing or curse? One thing is certain – more Ukrainians will die. Will they be able to defeat Putin eventually as US wants them to? Not while Russia having nuclear weapons. Repel Russians from Ukraine? Maybe eventually in several years’ time. But was it what Ukrainians voting for Zelenskyy wanted? They wanted the end of Donbass war, but got full scale proxy war between nuclear powers in their country.
The response in Europe in particular to Russia’s Ukraine invasion was swift and highly coordinated.
“Sponataneous” expressions of support for Ukraine popped up on TV screens across Europe and in the UK almost instantly.
As far as I’m aware the sanctions imposed on Russia were not debated and decided in parliaments. They weren’t decisions taken by each individual country. They were decided at some supra-national level. The nominally elected heads of governments of our countries were gathered together and informed of what the “coordinated” response would be. And that was it.
This is the reality of our world. Decisions that have massive implication for our lives and our livelihoods are being decided by a group of people that we don’t really know who they are. We can speculate, but we don’t know.
In summary, the question of whether Ukraine was over estimated or underestimated is interesting, I suppose. But far more interesting is by whom?
I’m genuinely interested in finding out who makes the decisions of the British state (and all the other so called democratic states.)
WEF?
It’s an obvious candidate. But I think that at best the WEF is a rough approximation to the answer because the process by which the WEF reaches its well publicised and seemingly very transparent proclamations is rather opaque.
So when the WEF comes up with some dystopian insanity about the 4th industrial revolution, which really does seem to be reflected in actual policy implemented by many countries, who came up with it? Did Klaus Schwab? Was it a group of oligarchs who use the WEF and Schwab as a mouthpiece and. consensus building organism? Is there a board of WEF grandees that act in representation of a group of major corporations, institutions and perhaps some bigger countries?
Maybe the WEF is more like a system for producing groupthink. It gathers together people with influence, puffs them up telling them they are not just influential in their country or in their industry but on a global scale and then gets them talking to each other about the same things, climate change and controlling this and controlling that. They pepper in platitudes about making the world better and global responsibility to make themselves feel good about it all. And before you know it they’re all marching together like drones in the same direction.
What is undeniable is that the things the WEF says seem to be closely aligned with policy in western countries. How much the WEF leads and how much it follows is what isn’t at all clear.
And Bill Gates.
I agree with what you say…particularly in relation to the ‘spontaneous’ expressions of support…which to be fair just feels on the whole like horrendous one-sided propaganda….which media, anywhere, has discussed Russia other than as the bogey-man? Pretty much tells you there’s an ‘accepted’ agenda…
I know we have to unpick what we can from the media, but I don’t trust Reuters, anymore than I trust any MSM. Reuters has a ‘fact-checking’ partnership with Twitter and Facebook, we all know which way those lean…
They have ties with the WEF, Pfizer, and the Trusted News Initiative…well it’s not trusted by me…
I can’t disagree with any of that.
1) Russia expect good a quick win was the Straw Man of USA & NATO Countries propaganda. Russia made no such claim.
2) The ‘West’ didn’t under-estimate Ukraine, they under-estimated Russia – its willingness and ability to grind on, slowly, militarily and how adept it was at reorganising its economy.
‘… additional explanations. One is that European leaders didn’t expect Russia to respond by cutting off the gas supply…’
‘This seems extremely implausible, as it would imply our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs.’
Dear me!
Earth to Noah Carl. Earth to Noah Carl. On which planet have you been these last few years?
Implausible, because it implies that our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs? Well, indeed. Have you seen the shower of ‘leaders’ we have allowed to infest our governments? Half are pocket-lining, self-serving snakes who are taking orders from Brussels, the other half really are morons who think that being a good leader is promising to wipe everyone’s bum for them, then turning around to random businesses and individuals and saying ‘make it happen, I’ve got other things to do.’ And telling naughty Putin to just stop invading other countries, or else they will call him nasty names (not take him on in combat, of course).
The EU nations responded as one because Brussels instructed them to. This is the same Brussels that, under the authoritarian ‘green’ commissioner Timmermans, is literally telling people they just have to accept they will get poorer and will freeze and sit in the dark – all well awarding themselves a pay rise, natch.
Why is Brussels doing this? Pressure from the US combined with a hare-brained idea that this will help them achieve their ‘green’ plan. Once people see how wonderful it is to take cold showers and play shadow puppets by candle light, they will embrace the green. The one thing these people most definitely do not have is a basic understanding of human affairs. I think they really were shocked when, after telling Putin for weeks they would not pay for Russian gas, Putin turned off the gas. What the hell did they expect? They kept saying that not only would they not pay for it, they wouldn’t buy it after they had filled up their stores for the winter. And then were surprised when he said ‘fine by me’.
Certainly both Putin and the EU underestimated Ukraine’s military capabilities.
‘One of the most curious aspects of the Russian ‘special operation’ in Ukraine was how little effort the Kremlin had put into preparing its own population for what was about to be undertaken. The justification for the operation was made suddenly, over the course of about 10 days. In this it resembled the annexation of Crimea, despite being a much greater endeavour, suggesting that the Russian government wished to present it to the Russian public as a fait accompli.’
RUSI 22 Apr 22
The EU had, arguably still has, a complete blindspot regarding defence capability generally, particularly conventional defence in Europe, since its foreign policy has been dominated from 2005-2021 by a ‘peacenik’. The idea that economic ties between Germany and Russia would guarantee peace derived from the original concept of the EU as a construct to defang the Franco German struggles for supremacy in Europe of the recent past.
The fly in the ointment in all this has been the outstanding efforts of Britain, and, specifically, British Army trainers, as good as any worldwide, with recent combat experience, in training up the Ukrainian Army since 2014.
Swift and accurate target acquisition, using novel techniques, by well trained Ukrainian Forces has given Ukrainian artillery a force multiplying lethality.
If that has caught the world by surprise, it should not have. Montgomery instilled the need for intensive training into the British Army and that priority remains today. Consequently, they are very good at it.
But the British Ministry of Defence has, itself, been surprised by the failure of British and European conventional deterrence; Putin ‘going the full tonto’.
The lack of availability of significant European mechanised forces to protect EU members closest to Russia has contributed to the unmitigated disaster now in train in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly, Poland, for example, is now intent upon purchasing 1000 tanks from South Korea, the only country able to supply that volume at relatively short notice.
What is the Ukrainian Army asking for, and they certainly appear to know what they are doing?
Tanks.
Britain’s modern tank numbers? That would be 148, available on a good day i.e. not really.
We have been caught napping, as we were in 1938.
The failure of conventional deterrence is always expensive. It is not yet clear that the political will exists in Europe, or Britain, to put a credible conventional deterrent back together again.
And yet that is the only thing that will guard against further military adventurism in Europe, as Poland, much closer to the action, with a legacy of suffering from just such historical occurrences, understands only too well.
It cannot be repeated too often; to the Russian mind, quantity has a quality all of its own. They, and others like them, will not be deterred by drones and cyber. By the time cutting edge systems can take effect, deterrence will have failed.
Deterrence is the key. If you wish for peace, then prepare for war.
This is concerning….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-soldiers-told-ready-war-27791322
Especially as there is some information coming out that the ‘migrants’ being shepherded across the Channel are in fact UN militia currently being trained by the British Army in time for martial law to ensure full compliance with lockdowns, digital ID for rations etc
BE prepared!
https://rumble.com/v1ggt9v-britain-got-no-idea-what-coming-they-are-fast-asleep.html
What a pleasure it is to watch the gullible Brits swallow the ukraine/Russia fictionalised “war” and happily take it in the shorts by paying more for their energy this winter.. Ukraine, the third most corrupt country in the world and the Brits are doing their national duty and standing up for the “poor Ukrainians. Meanwhile zelensky, previously employed as a comedienne has a mega million dollar mansion on the beach in Florida and other properties. But the stoic Brits will do whatever they can to support ukraine against that bad man Putin. Has anyone even bothered to ask why exactly energy bills will be skyrocketing this winter. Anything to do with the US sanctions? Oh and don’t forget to take your next booster of the clot shot, guaranteeing ongoing mutation of the covid virus. The newest bivalent shot doesn’t even cover the current covid variant
but be sure to take it!!!