The legacy of older vehicles on the road -
as people are turning away from electric vehicles back to ICE vehicles
Manufacturer 'funk' is now showing, as vehicle makers sit on the fence waiting for clear demand indicators before totally ditching the internal combustion engine (ICE) and going fully electric.
The sensible players like Mazda, are seeing the EV trend as a phase and likely as a failing one, as they produce new ICE powered vehicles for production and sale.
Companies like Mazda will soon be seen to have taken the right direction.
EV production is not globally viable, being based on a finite supply of materials largely controlled by China and Chinese interests in Africa and other countries.
We are now entering a 'transport apartheid era thanks to the Green lobby and the dangerous opinions, agendas of pressure groups and woke individuals from largely unaccountable and unelected interests. The realities of these 'green' utopias are now showing as they are unaffordable and unobtainable 'wank fantasies'.
No one voted for Net Zero as a standalone policy, yet it is being foisted on the population, who are now being inconvenienced and taxed for the privilege of often essential travel - where there is viable alternative, the obvious solutions in Synthetic Fuels for example, are being largely ignored.
Except apparently for airlines and air travel use, much of which is unnecessary.
However, there is no ban on buying abroad and importing an ICE vehicle after 2030. Yet.
But also little to no support for synthetic fuels by those in power. Why not? Read on...
My recent poll on the journey to work noted a ratio of 1 electric vehicle to 62 Petrol or Diesel vehicles on the road in a 20 mile journey, in a semi-rural area of the Midlands.
Extrapolated out, this data shows the EV dream of 2030 complete replacement falls far short.
Even some scientists and academics to their credit, believe that the arbitrary dates of 2030, 2050 are unworkable if no established alternative technology exists.
ICE power plants are at their most efficient and clean ever, EV technology is in its relative infancy, by pushing the EV agenda on by contrast in the current 'primitive' development stage is an obvious recipe for failure, when it cannot assume the mantle of the ICE power plant's advantages yet and the obvious deficiencies in charging etc prevail.
With six and a bit years until the '2030 ban' on ICE vehicle sales, the uptake of electric is hardly looking like it is being lovingly embraced or sufficient to do the replacing.
The EV project is doomed to fail, it was tried in America in the early 1900's and the practicalities were then as now. They were impractical. They gave way to the ICE vehicle. The same practicalities and impracticalities remain. The only place EV's score and are viable is in short, urban journeys, reliant on whether you can find a charger and it is actually working.
The CO2 arguments used to 'promote' the EV and Net Zero lobbies are a farce - the actual CO2 content of our atmosphere after 250 years of industry, 2 world wars, 70 plus years of consumerism and air travel is that CO2 constitutes a mere 1/2 of 1% of the total of atmospheric gases.
There was far more CO2 in the time of the Dinosaurs as the fossil plant records bear out and the planet was much warmer, allowing cold-blooded Diplodocus et al to survive, which no one in the activist lobby seems to acknowledge.
This CO2/Net Zero agenda is about one thing - control. Alternative energy has been around since 1954 but America as the key world power and a major oil concern doesn't want that to be known. Oil and money makes the world go round and makes America rich.
If you refine oil for plastics, you get fuel and lube oils as by-products. If we do not use them, other countries less squeamish about CO2 or who laugh at our EV folly, continue to buy and use them.
Scaremongering about 'rising CO2 levels is just that. Skewed 'science' is being used to drive this lobby forwards down a road to which they have no road map and on which unforeseen factors are emerging. Talk of 'rising levels of CO2' is never borne out by any data. Just scaremongering. The real population is the rising population in some countries.
People are holding onto older 2000's era vehicles because they see no future in electric or want the costs or the attached inconvenience. Synthetic fuel alternatives are available but can they be taxed as they are 'Net Zero' and produce no CO2? Not logically.
For electric vehicles only
Here's why the CO2/Net Zero agenda fails
Firstly, no one decided at the outset of the EV folly to unify the plug layout or size, now we are stuck with multiple chargers rather than one unified system. A schoolboy error.
The pavement mounted EV chargers cannot deliver superfast charging - and never will.
Apparently booming second hand EV sales are because people are dumping EV's and going back to ICE vehicles before they cannot get a decent return on them.
Many used car dealers do not want to take an EV in a part exchange.
Heavy EV's wear out tyres quickly, tyres made largely from Oil.
EV battery performance life peaks at around 5 years and declines rapidly thereafter.
EV range is affected by cold, hills, drain on the system for battery maintenance etc.
Some EVs as the battery level declines slow down to 40mph max speed hardly what you want on a motorway. 'Non-essential' items self shut down on some cars - like the suspension.
As your range declines on a journey, you have to decide what to shut off i.e. heater, radio etc.
If the battery fails can you get out of the car? Ask Radio 2 DJ Scot Mills, he found this out. If the rear tailgate of his EV had not been completely closed he would have been trapped in there.
The ticket cost price of the first generation EV's has dived, with used values diving further and many people grossly out of pocket as almost the same cars are available new, at a third off in many cases.
Original EV cost is much more than for a Petrol or Diesel car and with rising electricity costs for charging and short battery life, the likelihood of recouping the difference is about nil or worse, a deficit.
The reality of distance driving is obvious in an EV - it isn't a viable option if you want a hassle free journey where you don't get 'range anxiety' and hope that the next charger is working or there is actually going to be one in that area, ICE is and always was the only conveniently viable alternative to the EV.
The promised fast charge rates are not attainable on current street or domestic power supplies, only in factory testing where large capacity supply is available.
Having to waste hours charging up is not really progress when refuelling an ICE vehicle is 5 minutes or less. Not 2 plus hours. Up to a day and a half at home for some cars.
EV battery minerals are finite and will not service the expected global demand.
Minor damage to battery packs is an MOT failure and negates any savings when the battery is required to be replaced at a cost of £10,000 plus. This is an obvious gold mine for the unscrupulous.
An ICE vehicle can last 20 plus years - EV's to equal that lifespan, require 3 x replacements this is hardly green, let alone the costs involved.
ICE fuels do not involve human slavery or the damage to the environment that EV battery minerals prospecting and extraction does.
ICE oil extraction is highly regulated, with a health and safety system in place, this cannot be said for EV minerals where child and slave labour is often used and health and safety seem absent.
That's why ICE vehicles are being kept going, hopefully we can get someone in authority who has the ability to see through the hype of the EV and not wish to hobble our people with expensive and unworkable transport solutions based on hype.
