As the FT notes this morning:
[D]espite months of pressure by the UK, four of the world's five largest carmakers — Volkswagen, Toyota, the Renault-Nissan alliance, and Hyundai-Kia — have not signed up [to ending new car emissions by 2040].
BMW is also holding back, I believe. There may be others doing so. Their claim is that they cannot make electric cars unless they also produce fossil fuel ones to subsidise them.
The reality is that each of these companies is trying to preserve their existing business model. None of them appear to have accepted the fact that climate change demands that we live a different lifestyle to that which we have at present. Their assumption would seem to be that a bit of tweaking around the edges is all that is required. That, though, is simply not true.
At the same time, their behaviour might tell us something else. Implicit in their refusal to endorse this necessary demand might be a recognition that their business models cannot, as they stand, be adapted to the world that we must live in. Although they do not say so, what they might be suggesting is that this demand that they adapt is, at present, beyond their capacity to deliver. Maybe we should applaud them for this: whether they appreciate it or not, they are being honest as to their inability.
What, however, does that inability represent? Explicit within the concept of sustainable cost accounting, which I have been proposing for some time, is the idea that a company may be carbon insolvent. What this means is that a company can either not see a way to eliminate emissions from its business model or, alternatively, if it can see the way to do so it cannot do so in a way that lets it remain as an economic going concern. In other words, what it knows is that its product will cease to be viable in the new way of living which we must embrace.
My question is whether by refusing to sign this agreement these companies have admitted that they are carbon insolvent? They might be saying that their business models are now redundant in the world that cannot use their products and simultaneously maintain human life as we know it on this planet.
If that is the case, then we face a quite different question to that which most will pose in reaction to their refusal. Most will think them to be climate change deniers. I admit, I have some sympathy with that. But if what they are actually indicating is that we have to rethink transport in all its forms if we are to succeed in tackling climate change then their message might actually be quite important.
Of course, that means that the task may simply be bigger than we have thought. What this alternative message implies is that we must reallocate capital from those unable to adapt to those willing to innovate to find the solutions that we need. It would help if these companies admitted that this was the case. That they are capitalist dinosaurs whose time has come might be the real story on this issue.
Climate change is going to have many more victims if we are to succeed in constraining it than most appreciate. These companies have put themselves on the list of those who must become extinct if we are to survive.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I could not agree more.
If we replaced all the oil based cars with electric ones, no one seems to be thinking of the huge resource extraction needed to do that because the no one is mentioning public transport.
But what this also signifies to me is that car building is now something that is ending as a private concern and might need huge state backing to make the transition to electric but also on much more smaller scale.
Inertia of big companies infrastructure is always a huge handicap, which is why new entrants are often more successful. Tesla is now worth more than the big five combined, but this really shows a failure of management to define their strategy. Simply milking cash from a declining market (as cigarette manufacturers have done) is not an option. Bans on Ice engines may not become universal, but they will knock out enough big markets to make large scale ICE car plants uneconomic.
The more relevant question for car makers is whether #GreenHydrogen will overtake batteries, and if so will hydrogen drive tbe engine directly, or simply power the fuel cells for an electric car? Knowing which new technology to back is a high stakes game. All of which suggests that new entrants like Tesla are more likely to make the running. Unless the big 5 can reinvent themselves as green tech innovators they will face a terminal decline by 2030.
I think it’s unlikely hydrogen will be used for direct combustion much, because of the explosive risks. Maybe it makes sense in heavy industry where it can be more tightly controlled.
Manufacturing green hydrogen (or blue hydrogen) is much less efficient than transmitting electricity over power lines. It probably has useful purpose, but it will be 5-10 years before there’s much of an infrastructure to deliver H2 to passenger cars.
Currently ZapMap tells me there are over 49,000 car charging points in the UK with about 900 added in the last 30 days https://www.zap-map.com/statistics/
Best I can find is that there are 11 public H2 filling points in the UK, and it’s been the same for the past few years. Currently BEVs are making up over 20% of new car sales, and there are still few FCEVs on the market.
I think that tells you all you need to know really. It’s VHS and Betamax.
H2 has a future in buses, trucks, ships and planes I think it is safe to say, but it might not even be developed enough to catch up with HGVs and buses, looking at the vehicles Volta and Arrival already have in pre-production.
Dealing with your points one by one. In the case of ICE engines it is quite possible to convert diesel engines to burn H2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Q7nAYjAJY
I have zero in common with Bamford politically – what he has to say about diggers and by extension agricultural machinery is worth hearing (= don’t confuse the message and the man). His approach could be extended to the current fleet of diesel vehicles – in rural areas – including those used for personal transport.
You second statement with respect to “manufacturing green H2 is less efficient” rather misses the point of needing to de-carb: elec, heat & transport. There is zero prospect of up-grading either the distribution network or the transmission network to carry the elec needed to support de-carb in all three areas (heat pumps have a role, but so do domestic fuel-cells using H2) . The point is to embed renewables where possible in the existing network and to locally supply H2. This overcomes the problem of surplus RES elec (& you will a significant surplus if you meaningfully de-carb elec) whilst answering the: how do we decarb heating and transport (in non-urban areas).
With respect to the comparison with VHS, Betamax and V200 (Philips) –the quality and performance is in reverse order – VHS was by a long way the worst. & indeed, going for “all-elec” would be the worst possible choice (from a cost and timeliness point of view).
There is a great deal of black&white thinking going on & not enough systems thinking.
The above response is in summary form. I could have written 20 pages on the subject with plenty of references.
Hi Mike, thanks for your interesting and informed reply.
> In the case of ICE engines it is quite possible to convert diesel engines to burn H2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Q7nAYjAJY
> His approach could be extended to the current fleet of diesel vehicles – in rural areas – including those used for personal transport.
I think that’s true, but I don’t see adapting existing vehicles as realistically scalable in a short time scale. It requires huge amounts of technical knowledge. There’s a reason mass production was adopted for cars – see cars before and after the model-T Ford. Doing this stuff is complex and expensive because it requires superb engineers. So whilst there’s also a decent market in electrification of classic cars, this is a cottage industry, not a realistic solution to the world’s transport problems.
I agree that hydrogen is useful for heavy machinery. I think that’s probably one of it’s best selling points. For small passenger cars though? No.
> You second statement with respect to “manufacturing green H2 is less efficient” rather misses the point of needing to de-carb: elec, heat & transport.
Not really – it’s entirely the point. Most vehicle ownership is by fleets, and most of the cost is in running and maintaining the vehicles rather than capital expenditure. Therefore how efficient they are to run is of paramont importance to the choice you make when buying the tool to do the job.
When I say it’s less efficient, it’s not just a little less efficient, but straggeringly less efficient. The well-to-tank efficiency of a BEV is about 70-90% (including cable transmission loss) whereas for a FCEV it’s 25-35%.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/the-future-lies-in-ev-or-fcev/
https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/stories/battery-or-fuel-cell-that-is-the-question-5868
Hydrogen has less energy density than petrol, and a similar engine efficiency. As such, combustion of hydrogen is less efficient than fuel cells. This is because a lot of the energy is lost in heat. So, the equation there actually looks worse.
>There is zero prospect of up-grading either the distribution network or the transmission network to carry the elec needed to support de-carb in all three areas (heat pumps have a role, but so do domestic fuel-cells using H2) .
Zero, really? I think you need to read up about this a bit more:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/5-myths-about-electric-vehicles-busted
> The point is to embed renewables where possible in the existing network and to locally supply H2. This overcomes the problem of surplus RES elec (& you will a significant surplus if you meaningfully de-carb elec) whilst answering the: how do we decarb heating and transport (in non-urban areas).
I agree to some extent, but I’ve heard ridiculous propositions that don’t add up for this – like having every filling station generate it’s own H2. This requires highly technical engineers to manage and maintain and inspect, every day, unless you want to risk customers going up in smoke. It’s one thing storing petrol and squirting it out a nozzle, it’s a very different prospect both creating H2 with electolysis (which requires a large electric grid connection anyway), and storing it under high pressure. I think the insurance of the stations would make this economically unfeasible. But lets suppose you had regional centres producing and distributing the H2, then you would still need to tanker it around, making it immediately less effiicient straight away, and sort of defeating the purpose of the whole localised production concept.
> With respect to the comparison with VHS, Betamax and V200 (Philips) –the quality and performance is in reverse order – VHS was by a long way the worst. & indeed, going for “all-elec” would be the worst possible choice (from a cost and timeliness point of view).
No, I got it the right way around. Lots of people argued betamax was technically superior (and to begin with, it was), but it hardly mattered because they got the business model wrong, and VHS completely dominated the market. It’s not always about the best technical solution, it’s often about the market advantages you have, and the timing. Hydrogen used to be technically superior, 10 years ago. 10 years later, nothing much has happened with H2, but battery EVs are being produced in their millions, and many of the initial technical challenges have been solved.
Hydrogen has some advantages of battery storage:
– It’s easier to store for long periods
– It can be moved by ship or tanker and doesn’t need permanant infrastructure to transport it (of course moving it still requires energy)
– It can be centrally produced and distributed where it is needed more flexibly
– It’s quick to refuel a vehicle with it
However it has these disadvantages
– It’s dangerously explosive so requires careful procedures when handling and producing it
– It’s very energy inefficient to produce at present
– It can be produced from natural gas, so encourages more fossil fuel production
– There are very few places you can presently buy it to fuel a vehicle
– There are very few FCEVs on the market, and most manufacturers have decided to produce BEVs instead
The last advantage it has, about quick refueling is fast becoming irrelevant – a Porshe Taycan can charge at 262KW, and will add 540mph in range. So a 19m charge will let you drive another 150+ miles. It’s not as fast as H2, but batteries aren’t exactly a long way behind. I saw two Taycan’s in the last week (and this is a £140k car!), but I’ve yet to see a Mirai or a Hyundai Nexo.
I own I Hyundai Kona we’ve had for 3 years. It has very few faults, and we can charge it almost anywhere, including via a 13A 3-pin plug at our inlaw’s in rural Aberdeenshire. If we’d bought a Nexo, we’d have to drive to Sheffield more than an hour away to refuel it. So they aren’t more practical right now – however theoretically practical they may be.
> There is a great deal of black&white thinking going on & not enough systems thinking.
I absolutely agree. H2 definately has it’s place. It will be fantastic for shipping, aircraft and heavy industry, and we absolutely should spend time and effort as a society to help produce *green* hydrogen and utilise it for it’s benefits.
However, it should absolutely not be used as an excuse to hold back battery EVs. The reason of course it has been historically, is because H2 can also be made from natural gas, which benefits fossil fuel companies. They would much rather things continued to run on a product they control, and so have much vested interest in convincing people that battery EVs are the devil’s spawn, whilst H2 is the bee’s knees.
You’re absolutely right Richard. I think Tesla fans have been saying this for a long time.
There’s the occasional bright point, like the VW CEO Herbert Diess’s discussions with Elon Musk, where you think they might be beginning to get how important EVs are, but then he’s just had a vote of no confidence raised against him, seemingly for being too pro electrification.
https://electrek.co/2021/11/04/vw-ceo-ifacing-no-confidence-vote-after-telling-truth-need-to-go-electric-fast/
Any company that behaves that way in the face of their business model being destroyed is saying they don’t want to exist anymore. I get that there’s lots of workers who know how engines work and don’t know how EVs work. So it’s up to the management of VW to train them and give them reassurance about their jobs so they can make the transition. They’ve completely failed to do this it seems.
I suspect if they don’t change soon, Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, BYD, Nio and all the other EV only companies will just leave them in the dust, while they continue to pay for engine factories that no one wants. People want electrification now, like they haven’t before, and demand far outstrips supply.
A lot of them (notably Toyota) are perhaps hoping hydrogen will save them. I think they haven’t quite realised yet that hygrogen FCEVs are electric cars too. You can’t make a good fuel cell electric car if you don’t know how to make good battery electric cars, and clearly the H2 infrastructure is far behind where that would need to be to make them realistic for most people.
There’s a few old companies that get it – Ford might meet the transition, and say the right things. Hyundai/Kia already make great electric cars so have a fighting chance, even if they are dawdling.
Toyota is hopelessly behind and despite being the world’s largest manufacturer and producing wildly successful hybrids, they’ve only just announced their first battery EV. They are probably going to be a much smaller player in the future.
Put the externalities into prices and see the carmakers lose customers if they don’t adapt. Their customers will have to adapt too. And innovation that works is rewarded.
Put it into the accounts and just eeeeurgh.
Instead of expecting/hoping/wanting the car industry to do something why not attack from the other side and make it uneconomical for the them? If a petrol car otr price is £25k and the equivalent EV is £30k then slap an additional £10k tax on the petrol, or diesel, version.
Which one would you buy?
With the constant new investment by traditional carmakers into new designs and models, retooling, and other costs, it is understandable that the car companies don’t want to see this capital “wasted” ie no profit but probably a loss. They are not going to change to EV production voluntarily and abandon new fossil fuel models immediately. Only strict legislation will do that. Vague statements by the government to ban the sales of diesel and petrol vehicles by 2030 are not enough. Change must be made now if the climate crisis is to be tackled seriously.
Agreed
Even then they may not be able to change
When thinking about this problem, we must all keep these facts in mind.
1.Studies have shown that there are not enough resources in the world for all the batteries necessary.
2.We must all consume less ’stuff’, the biggest item of which is individual, private transport (cars).
3. Rubber tyres produce deadly particles that get into the blood stream, and are also washed into rivers doing major harm – PM2.5s.
4.We will probably never have enough electricity for a huge number of electric cars.
5.Hydrogen and fuel cells are not the magic answer that many think they are. Produce renewable electricity to make hydrogen to burn in a vehicle, and throw most of the energy away as heat. Put the hydrogen into a fuel cell to produce electricity which means throwing half the energy away as heat. The hydrogen answer is a myth.
6.The only logical answer is to have a transport system based around electric vehicles on steel tracks, ie. trains and trams,(plus electric bikes).
7. It should be obvious that car manufacturers should convert to building trains and trams, if we are to have a decent transport system in a saved world.
8. Wishful thinking, I hope not. Has anyone got a better idea, keeping the facts shown here in mind.
I have not
I believe the tram critical to the future – including in rural areas
Trams require rails, and just to get those rails laid will require a massive investment. However there is also the problem of disruption whilst they are being laid – the project in Edinburgh should be a lesson to anyone considering it.
However that does not mean electrified public transport is a non starter. I remember that there used to be ‘trolley buses’ which although they still needed the overhead power lines did not need streets ripped up to lay rails. These had the advantage that they had a bit more mobility as they did not need to stay on a rigid route.
With the addition of battery power this could allow them to deviate from fixed power lines then return to their route and recharge whilst continuing on their merry way.
Rails are investment
Public transport has to come first, before car reduction – the impact of transition must be borne collectively not individually. For car use to decline, transport has to be provided as long as people are expected to travel to work in order to survive. To simply price people out of cars, or otherwise reduce availability is not the way to go as this will harm those who have contributed least, and by necessity, to the problem.
The other way of doing it is to force their hands. Ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, which would make them a finite resource; with the loss of vehicles due to corrosion and collision, pollution will decrease. People will also take more care of their vehicles because they know that they can’t be replaced, so the exisisting ones’ emissions should be kept as low as they can be.
Car makers can also look at upgrades for older vehicles.
Commercial vehicles are a different thing, which has to tie into an expanded rail network; road transport should only be local for goods.
Supplying a private vehicle to a large proportion of people on this planet (whether fossil-fuel, electric or even hydrogen powered) is obviously great for the profit margin of car manufacturers, but do we really need to each own a separate vehicle?
Moving away from fossil fuel is needed, but we also need to see a corresponding reduction in the total volume of vehicles.
In response to comments on public transport systems: one example of a public transport system – worthy of the name “public” & “system” can be found in Vienna. If most transport systems were like this – there would be far fewer cars in urban and suburban areas. Fact is: Vienna is the exception.
I question the viability of (new) tram systems – given the space that is needed. That said, one solution (albeit updated for the 21st century) has been staring us in the face for decades. I have been on it, it is excellent and a modifed version could very easily function above most artierial roads. It would also be vastly cheaper than trams & lends itself to significant automation. Individual carridges (4 peopel) would solve loading problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn
https://youtu.be/J5Gd5YQwOys
Lorries powered from overhead lines, just like the old trolley buses, being tried in Germany.
Ideal for our Motorways?
These could infill where there is no appropriate rail link, bur there is a Motorway.
Ideally we should get back to what I remember from the ’50s, rail distribution centres with three wheeled tractor vehicles completing the last few miles only.
I think we should build the system for the future the other way round. Concentrate on the networks to move people and goods in an environmentally sustainable way, then if people still want or need their own vehicle they can be supplied as electric cars etc.
We should concentrate on taking as much of that need away with a decent public infrastructure. This could and should be free for everyone.
My comment might be to start with that getting your head round what a zero carbon future might look like isnt easy and we cant necessarily predict what it might be like.
Oh and where is the 21st Century’s Colonel Holman F Stevens. We need you!
For those not in the know, look him up…..
My brother drives and works on diesel lorries for a living.
He refuses to have diesel car as he thinks the proliferation of diesel cars has become the biggest problem for the environment. These smaller diesel engines are less efficient than the bigger diesel engines of HGVs. Even my local mechanic has told me that ALL diesel cars are more polluting until they have been running a fair bit and THEN he measures the emissions – whether or older or new, ALL diesel car engines are dirty from a cold start.
It’s telling that the Government wants to ban diesel lorries I think by 2040. I heard one reasonable sounding haulier talking about this early on R4 yesterday. Electric vans and lorries from city to city may not be a problem. But long distance is going to be a bigger problem.
There is very little infrastructure to enable lorries to park anyway in this country; none of them have lorry charging points for electric HGVs.
One thing I see too much of is smoky engines and there needs to be more policing of that.
I think the Government response so far is confused and unfocused. They’d rather upset the hauliers than car using voters because they are thinking too politically about it all of the time.
We should concentrate on getting people out of their cars first and foremost; if we advertised the no.88 bus into our local town as much we advertised the latest SUV on T.V. I’m sure user-ship would go up. Cars first, lorries later (but yes, they’ve all got to change).
But to think: we had trams and trolley buses and we let them go.
Thinking a bit deeper about this, we’ve been using the speed of fossil fuel engines to fold time and space – get around more quickly.
In the future I think that life – if sustained – will be slower. We need to accept that now. and welcome it.
The big car companies are starting to look like Kodak.
Kodak had a huge lead in CCD technology which they did nothing with because it would have negatively impacted their main business which was film.
Where are Kodak now? Broken up. Gone.
Is that the fate that awaits BMW, VW, etc ?
Quite probably
[…] link to original article […]