The China EV industry threat - could we see World car makers out of business? And a full return to Petrol and Diesel vehicles?

 

A new chapter in the Electric Vehicle folly -

potential collapse of the EV project and a future return to liquid fuels.

China is a 97% monopoly holder of access to the rare Earth metals used in production of Electric Vehicle batteries and for the Green industry. That should be worrying for the world's motor manufacturers and people who might buy electric vehicles.

The ability for China to 'turn off' and immobilise electric vehicles touted in the press recently is not new technology, this facility has been inside vehicle software for years. 

Some few years ago, a tractor that was ploughing a field in Britain stopped, the owner rang the dealer who said it had been remotely turned off because the owner hadn't made a payment. So this is a reality.

Imagine a theoretical scenario with the danger for the British motor manufacturers for example, that China 'dumps' a massive amount of cheap electric vehicles onto the Western markets, cheaper than the resident manufacturers can make them for in the first place.

Such a move could make these other manufacturers stop producing vehicles and essentially go out of business because they could not compete. Or they would have to go back to recommencing petrol and diesel production to survive.

This move would allow China then to set the price of their own produced EV vehicles for sale in the West at whatever price they choose, you would have no other purchasing choice except not to buy and go back to walking.

As such, then China could with effectively near complete market control, could choose as a geopolitical policy, not to produce electric vehicles and sit on the access to the required minerals so no one else can either. Or sell the minerals at a very high price if it chose to.

Thus, the West would be forced to again to start production of Petrol and Diesel vehicles from a point zero if it could start from the ashes of the EV folly.  

If the western motor industry collapses totally, China could then become virtually one of the only providers of motor vehicles and the result would be that the electric vehicle project could be eternally doomed, the street chargers then being little more than monuments to the stupidity of the whole project. 

China could decide that it would only produce liquid fuel vehicles and as such the EV market could almost collapse. In effect it could control most of our transport by default. 

No one seems to have woken up to this potential problem.

No one seems to have seen that the early technology of the EV is dangerous to pursue as a sole alternative to other forms.

The EV policy is being presided over by people who often of not have the technical ability to understand the great steps needed to drive alternatively.

It is easy to grab headlines by making bold statements of intent, but these are often at the expense of the technology to do so not being a proper solution that is ready to go.

Germany to outflank EU 2030 petrol and Diesel vehicle Ban - as I have been saying for ages! Wake up Britain!!

 

We are still in love with Petrol and Diesel Vehicles  -

well maybe not the Allegro....

It has now come to pass that the Germans have seen the light well and truly over the scam that wants us to not buy Petrol and Diesel vehicles after 2030 only Electric Vehicles.

Hats off to Porsche, for having developed a 100% Green and 100% Net Zero synthetic Petrol substitute that can be used in modern and old vehicles, the future of older cars and new ones looks much healthier. The Classic Vehicle sector in the UK is worth £18 Billion a year

Germany wants to exempt vehicles that can use 'alternative' fuels to fossil fuels - i.e. synthetic Petrol and Bio / Organic Diesel fuels from the 2030 vehicle sales ban. 

With Mazda recently bringing a new diesel car to market, they obviously realise too that the electric vehicle folly is going to run out of juice.

Wake up Britain! For too long politicians have been going on about 'sustainable air travel' using 'cleaner, synthetic fuels' but not a single word about synthetic fuels for road vehicles. Why??

Yesterday, I drove 20 miles  to work and I counted every vehicle on the road - over 200 and the ratio of Electric Vehicles (all cars) was 1 electric vehicle to 62 Petrol or Diesel vehicles. 

If that is the ratio reflected across the nation, then it is going to be decades before the EV has taken over and that is at this rate that looks unrealistic. Thankfully.

Italy has also rebelled against the EU as it now realises how many jobs will be lost to the electric vehicle folly, talk of Green jobs being created in the wake of the electric vehicle is unproven.

E10 Petrol said to be the equivalent of taking over 300,000 vehicles off the road is rubbish. Take out the illegally re-wilded wild Boar put back into nature that release captured CO2 equivalent to 1 million cars a year and you are making a more positive move and solving a food problem at the same stroke for some years.

E10 fuel is far less efficient with a car losing over 100 miles of range off a tankful compared to E5  fuel.

As we have seen recently, when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn't out as in Winter, the old Coal power stations are brought back on line, better to burn powdered coal than wet biomass which kicks out far more CO2 only tolerated because it is 'renewable' - so is coal , if you plant trees and wait 350 million years for it to convert. Coal was a tree once. We are told not to burn wet wood in stoves, yet it seems ok in Bio Mass plants. That is a wet wood transported by sea at a cost of ten feet to a gallon of Marine oil burnt. Not very green.

Time for Britain to wake up from its usual complacency and start synthetic fuel production soon. It's about time we had people running this country who actually had some professional skill in knowing what they are doing rather than hapless 'seat hopping' amateurs.

Are Electric cars and Carbon Neutrality a big con - and is climate change just another political bandwagon to hitch a ride on?

Are we being conned over electricity and the Green agenda?

We have had access to free energy since 1954 but we are denied it. Why?

Electric cars are being toted as clean and green and the future. Far from it. 1 in 5 Californian electric car owners are trading their electric cars back in for gasoline cars - because the range isn't there, nor is the quickness of charging time or availability of charging points.

Motor manufacturers are currently engaged in an apparent race to the bottom by not planning or introducing new models of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles as governments career headlong into a potential fool's paradise of no having no new ICE vehicles sold as of 2030. The future is not electric cars. It is not battery cars. It is bio fuelled cars.

In California, they are apparently falling out of love with Electric Cars!

Modern vehicles are infinitely more efficient and cleaner and they have ever been, the future for transport is bio fuels not the direction being navigated down the battery route. Battery power units are not at a development stage that means we are going to get a really good range or power output then there is the question of the battery charging rate that will differ between batteries and of course the costs to charge a battery. We likely don't have the source power to charge the batteries required.

Battery cars are driving the wrong end of the problem - they drive the wheels directly, losing 25% efficiency there due to frictional forces, plus the load on the battery. Why not use the battery to drive a brushless generator and create through rectification more power than you put in, thus your battery car would go further and quicker for long operations such as motorway driving, perhaps a 70mph motorway cruise range of 400 miles could be achievable this way, not the environmentally heavy demanding theoretical ranges now in place.

As I predicted, this battery technology is quite new and what happens if like computers, one system quickly supersedes another? You are going to have Apple envy and a divisive battery car snobbery, with entry level vehicles looked down on, rather than a level playing field battery system.

What happens to old batteries? Can they be recycled, what happens to the rest of the vehicle which less the battery is about valueless except for scrap? Because the battery is built in to the structure in current vehicles and is not easy to remove.  

Slowly, some proponents of the carbon neutral folly are removing their green tinted spectacles and starting to see that China effectively now controls the majority of materials needed for battery cars and renewable energy. 

A lot of these resources are situated where China has invested in their extraction and controls the materials holdings in the regions. If China holds considerable access rights to these materials, it can dictate the price to supply and even if it wants to supply other nations. 

The risk is that when 2030 hits and people cannot buy ICE cars perhaps because of battery cost just for example leave alone the availability factor, what then? Some people could be looking mighty stupid as the rest of us say 'we told you so'. 

The risk is that having lost 10 years of development on ICE cars which may be even more cleaner then and possibly using greener by development, and use of bio fuels, we will be doubly disadvantaged. 

The Covid situation has meant more people can work from home and are choosing to do so, thus a 'commuting less workforce' saves the environment by cutting car use painlessly. This will probably achieve as much as this battery vehicle folly might in CO2 reduction alone.  

In 2030 when we are standing around wanting batteries or materials, we are going to look like a load of fools when these are either not available or priced at a premium rate many will not be able to afford. This is akin to the largest schoolboy error in the history of our species occurring, within plain sight. A real slow motion car crash if ever there was one. 

So then in addition, how does using child labour in some countries to extract Cobalt and other rare earth minerals sit with the typically left-leaning, climate change wokesters bent on sending us down the electric and renewables route? 

These are the sort of people who spout on media platforms on black lives and slavery issues, yet seem strangely less vocal when effectively both of these issues these days can involve their pet causes, such as obtaining materials for their beloved electric cars in some cases? Strange that.

Face the facts - in the United Kingdom alone, 33 million vehicles will need replacing with electric ones, plus the charging point infrastructure and the generated power required to fuel these items to be in place in less than 9 years, it is probably not achievable in the timescale nor practical. Nor likely affordable to the average motorist.

Yet some politicians and activists are intent on careering the motoring population down their sanctimonious road to a situation that is probably the wrong road. (We have been encouraged to adopt private transport by governments of all persuasions in the past.) Many people can't afford the alternative to ICE vehicles, the savings of these electric cars are lost in other costs - the worst cost is to the planet. 

Covid 19 has slashed air travel, much of which was a luxury, unnecessary and a colossal waste of resources. A large jet aircraft for instance generates on takeoff the equivalent of one automobile's total CO2 output for 10 years of average driving during that 10 minutes of takeoff activity. Multiply that with every jet leaving Heathrow in a day and you'll see the obvious savings to the planet. by reducing air travel alone.

How are we going to have a net CO2 output with air travel operating at previous levels?  Have these people not thought this through? How can you have a commerce based economy without generating CO2? It is not presently possible. 

With Covid starting to recede in some areas there is a rush to get air travel going again - how does this square with the same politicians clamouring for switching to electric vehicles on environmental grounds trumpeting a return to flying? You could not make it up. The hypocrisy is both obvious and risible. Wanting one pie in the sky ideal and another highly polluting one simultaneously. 

Around Heathrow airport a new low emission zone for road vehicles is in force whilst the same airport is planned for massive air travel expansion dubbed 'good for business'. Road vehicles (who use the is new zone) pay 80% of the cost of their fuel purchase price already as tax, aircraft fuel is devoid of tax I believe? What is the logic here? Pollute massively for no cost, pay to pollute and be charged twice?

Free energy you are asking? Yes. It exists, we have been standing on the basis of it since our species first stood on this planet. It is under our very feet. 'We have the means to take ET home' it has been said, so that means we already have very advanced power systems available to us, far in excess of what we mostly know of today, which we could be using to subvert climate change perhaps with clean energy.

'We have had the potential for 'free energy' since 1954' - we have also been told - but you can't tax free energy or control it unless you control the technology that can utilise it. We could have changed our way of living more than 60 years ago it seems for the better, for cleaner and quicker travel - but it's all about control - control of resources, control of energy, control of political power, revenue, taxes from things we use and lastly control of the population. 

How much of our atmosphere is made up of CO2? a small percentage, less than half of 10%. In the time of the Dinosaurs, CO2 made up a far bigger proportion of the atmosphere than today. This is one reason why trees and vegetation grew so large in those times, not to mention the creatures. Less gravity was a factor too, of course.

Hydrogen as a usable fuel is a pipe dream today, it can be used but it is not feasible at present -  by more efficient use of fuels we have, use of bio and synthetic fuels which will capture CO2 in their growth will help, as will reduction in the human population are the solution. Even the ecologists agree on this last point.

Like racism, climate change has been stoked up into an emotive subject that some see as a means of making a career from, or a bandwagon in some cases to jump onto. 

We live in a commercial world based on trading, manufacturing and commerce - like it or not since the last industrial revolution at least. That world needs resources, fuels and energy at a minimum to operate on. Free energy isn't in that equation today, but it should be.

We do not live in a 'one world society', we do not enjoy a civilisation that is geared to a common set of ideals to maintain the population and its future for one population, living in a harmonious and forward thinking situation. 

We exist in a world divided by factions, religious and political outlooks, one where the forces of nature - dog eat dog et al, operate. We really need to change society, change who we are as people to change the world and that isn't going to happen all the time that there is money to be made from societal division, warfare, where a supply and demand commerce situation exists and is actively helped to exist.Whilst beliefs differ, so will outcomes. You only have to look at the Palestine situation to see the rocky relationship there.

Ask yourself who really gains from Carbon neutrality? Who has their fingers in the Green pie? Sure as eggs is eggs, a lot of the same movers and shakers in commercial business will be taking their fingers out of one pie and sticking it into the eco industry one. As the saying goes, 'where there's muck, there's brass.' This applies here to this subject.Carbon seen as muck, there's money in a solution - the brass. 

The frightening thing is how school children have as a result been scared and mentally damaged by the climate change doom and gloomers, into thinking the world is going to end in 10 years or less. 

How does business work? It is basically making a profit by taking care of someone else's problem and providing a solution for the problem at a cost - Carbon neutrality is that problem being promoted today and there are probably plenty of organisations lining up to take care of it and present their invoices for doing so. 

Sure, they will have skilled public relations messaging and content to soft soap the population into accepting how 'good' this low carbon solution is for our world, but you can be darn sure that there are those looking to make big money from the 'problem' by being part of the 'solution.' That's how business works. Think about it for yourselves and ask yourselves where is the smart money being made today? 'Solving' the climate issue.

At the moment, unless we change to the potential free energy situation and re-evaluate what we are doing and where we are going as a species, we are prisoners of Doctors who seemingly allow infection to continue but also provide medication to help cure it every so often.

The question you should be asking is why not change the world beyond this issue? Can you not see that replacing one mode of transport's motive power is not the end of the problem. There are a set of problems to conquer. Not just one.

The world's outlook needs changing. Who we are, who we want to be in the future, do we need this type of world or society? What is the human future, what should we be doing for mankind's future? The problem is that we are all such different people, that it  is unlikely to work or for people agreeing to a common plan of action.

These are the type of questions that need to be asked. Just messing about like kids in a sandpit pushing toy cars about and pretending yours is electric powered and is going to save the world, is just a diversion from what really needs to change and why. The species has to fundamentally change to make this truly work.

The bottom line with business is making a profit. Until humanity is put on the spot to redefine their future and come up with a workable plan, it is likely to just be business as usual.

 

Should Foreign aid be dropped? - its time we looked after the UK.

Charity begins at home -

We should start spending at home

We could an awful lot with £12.2 billion -  that's our Foreign aid budget, put that with the £14 billion we will save fron EU donations post Brexit and that's a lot of money we can spend at home, in the UK.

They say charity begins at home and the time has now come to shut  our foreign aid budget down and start spending the money in the UK.

We have faced years of cuts to services  in the UK, yet at the same juncture, we are sending money to oil rich countries like Bahrain, how mad is that?

We give to countries that have space programs - why?

If they can afford this they don't need our money

If a country has a space program then they don't need our aid, yet thanks to external directives issued beyond our shores, we seem obliged to give where it is not needed.

We give aid to China -

This is madness!

Yes, you couldn't make it up, we give foreign aid to the second wealthiest nation in the world - China.

Africa should by now after trillions of dollars of aid be at a level of development equal to modern European nations. Yet we keep tipping buckets of the stuff out, unaccountable 'gifts' which are not administered, allow rife corruption, which seems to be the norm.

Giving to help with incidents is one thing, but we now need to put the UK first if we want a secure future.

China paying top Dollar prices in buying up of European farmland - why you should be concerned

The old ways of Chinese farming are becoming changed by mechanisation

The economic growth in the Chinese economy has led the people there to migrate towards other tastes and foods which they previously rarely had access too.

The economic drain of agricultural workers to towns and cities has created new problems for the country, in terms of food supply and has allowed mechanisation to come forward in a 'tidal wave' of speed.

The low hanging fruit level of farming that is now displacing humans

Recently, Chinese investment has started buying land in mainland Europe to farm. Espcially in areas of France and Belgium, which is upsetting the locals as the Chinese are bringing their own people to do the farming.

And the produce which used to go into the European food markets is going back to China and not being consumed 'here.'

Should that alarm you? It should as this is just the start of a country that is finding western foods to its liking and wanting more.

The toxic waste legacy of China's manufacturing might

The other side of the coin is growing mechanisation, for China, years of a one child policy has led to a 1-2-4 family unit, one child to two parents to four grandparents structure.

With the one child being usually boys, this has created a massive imbalance to the tune of over 100 million males who will not reproduce or have a partner from Chinese stock.

The mechanisation of farming means that where in the past immigrants or holiday farmers were brought in to harvest crops, this can now be done by computer controlled machines which are more efficient and can work much longer.

The toxic waste legacy of China's almost unbridled recent growth means that some areas of land are badly contaminated to the extent that food grown there will start cancer in humans if consumed.

If this land use continues for off EU consumption, we could find prices increase greatly in the future. And less land is available to Western farmers.

China's coming reverse Tsunami - a tidal wave that risks collapsing on itself - and what it means for the West

China could be about to reap a reverse Tsunami of partly its own making

Chances are that much of what you bought recently is made in China. That serves a number of purposes, it provides cheap goods, the ecology there isn't apparently your problem and their standard of living improves from the sort of disastrous Mao era situation as business between East and West thrives.

Rural and farm workers have been seduced away from the land to the cities

China's growth has its own problems that are now starting to impact. With the growth in manufacturing over the last 20 years, people have been seduced to move away from the rural areas to where the money is, in the towns and cities. Much has changed since the Mao era when it was said to be 'bourgeois to own a watch.'

That along with the one child policy, disastrous 'economic reforms' that let to millions of people starving and a continuing one child policy are situations still impacting China today. Over 100 million men will not have a female partner in the future, so what is the solution for them? And what impact on the viability of the nation?

Stubborn resistance cannot ultimately halt progress

The new wealth coming from the economy means that many Chinese are becoming aspirational and now able to see what life is like in the West. Thanks to the internet, where it is not censored by the state, then a new 'Middle class' is emerging, sweeping away old shanty towns and in their place modern steel and glass, all of which are now aspiring to a 'Western' diet of fast food.

Technology is driving wealth, but also at high human costs

Despite the growth in high technology, it has its downsides, beyond worker suicides in some plants, the toxic waste problems and automation. Yes, automation is now taking a toll in China.

After complaints about overwork, one factory owner installed robots instead of workers and now only employs a few humans to monitor the plant and machinery needs. Of course, he has by dint of this, increased his production  manifold with reduced costs and defrayed human inefficiencies. Essentially 24 hour working from his 'workers.'

The toxic legacy of technology waste,

exporting this to China allows the West to say its 'not our problem.'

The processing of old technology in China is big business and recycling is one way of ensuring that valuable resources are not lost by burial in landfill.

Clean UK power is now being lost to power plant closure thanks to lunatic legislation,

but dirty power in Asia is continuing apace because it is seen as 'their problem.'

With China building record numbers of mainly coal burning power stations to feed energy needs, there are obvious problems with pollution.

The relentless production of Steel has created a glut of stock that the slowing Western economies cannot absorb or use. It is pointless to build new power stations that are not actually needed. Indeed, electricity consumption is a way of assessing economic activity.

China's relentless Steel production has created a glut of unwanted product

So how is this Tsunami going to hit China? In a number of ways. It has been caught short in some way. This is because it has transitioned from a less developed economy into a 'Western' level economy in a short time, although only in parts is it at 'Western' levels of development.

A surge of people away from the fields creates its own problems for the future, massive farming advances to feed a population more savvy to an improved diet with possibilities beyond a few generations ago is creating problems of future obesity, supply and likely adoption of GMO to meet future demands and that of 'Western' style fast food.

Chinese graduates are no longer immune to the high tech jobs not being available

Automation and robotics which is impacting the West is now impacting China far quicker. A situation where a few years ago it was an employees market with more jobs than people to fill them, which drove prices up as people did the formerly unheard of, touted to the highest bidder. Graduates as in the West are now no longer finding the jobs available that were perhaps there when they started studying.

Automation has now put the mockers on that and the Chinese workers like the West are all in the same Sampan now.

Over production of Steel is now a problem, with vast Steel stocks sitting waiting to be bought by customers who have less demand than of recent times.

The one child policy is now really hitting home, with a 1-2-4 ratio a reality, one child helping to support, two parents, four grandparents. Statistically, with girls born as second children, a one child policy means, you do the math. Less possible new people in the future and Chinese women are seeing possibilities beyond just being baby farmers.

Many Chinese men may have to do with finding solace in silicon, instead of a real partner

but at least they won't have to put up with an ugly or moody partner!

A knock on effect of the one child policy is that females are now seeing an alternative lifestyle to the traditional family scenario. For the single Chinese male of which there will be over 100 million without the possibility of a mate, solace in silicon may be the only answer.

Of course, on the reality of this, it means the reverse funnel of population is going to grow. Abandoning the one child policy now is too late, like the Chinese proverb, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.

So all these factors are building up, China has blossomed and mushroomed in the last 60 years away form a totalitarian Communist party state into a more Western facing and developed country, but at a cost and a cost to come.

These costs are yet to be realised in their totality, in fact countries like Vietnam are becoming the 'new' China, developed, industrially capable and with less labour costs. 

A Western company putting in its own tooling and guidance will lead to Vietnamese goods being made to Western standards, cheaper than China can.

This may lead to a trade war, with much dumping of product onto an already slow Western market.  The rise of China has been like a tidal wave of Tsunamic proportions, however, it has peaked quickly in a changing age and risks collapsing in on itself, the forward wave losing forward momentum and back flipping over on itself.