Comparison Between Battery Powered Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion-Engine Vehicles Cradle to Grave 13 The US vehicle manufacturer, Chevrolet, has recommended their battery-powered Bolt model is not parked within 50 feet of another car or in enclosed spaces, such as a garage. It now appears that this vehicle has been withdrawn from the market due to this potential fire hazard³3. As a result, battery-powered electric vehicles cannot, in truth, be justified on CO² or other environmental grounds. And if legislative measures mandating the recycling of batteries are introduced, the cost of these vehicles will be beyond the reach of the majority of the electorate. Restricted personal transport options could hold significant weight at the ballot box. Several countries are developing legislation to make EV batteries recyclable, but because of significant differences in both chemistry and construction between vehicle and battery manufacturers, the development of a uniform and efficient recycling system has been frustrated³⁴. We are nowhere near resolving the problem that millions of exhausted batteries will present in the coming decades. Some suggest batteries can be removed from vehicles and used in homes as a back-up for the National Grid. But even if this were to happen, there is a limit to what beneficial impact on power supplies this environmental mitigation would have.It is also reasonable to assume householders will be concerned about the risks of using end-of-life batteries in a domestic environment. The massive effort it takes to mine scarce materials including cobalt, lithium and nickel to produce batteries, coupled with the supply chain and manufacturing energy cost, means the total cost and CO ² impact of manufacturing a battery-powered EV is significantly greater than an equivalent sized ICE vehicle. The environmental and energy costs of mining at this scale have major implications for cradleto-grave calculations. The construction of ICE vehicles is more sustainable because they are much easier to both build – and maintain – in the first place. Secondly, recycling is environmentally beneficial as the vast majority of materials can be re-used. They are also more fuel efficient and line losses are taken into account³⁵. We do not need the enormous, nationwide overhaul of our fuel supply system that electrification and the imposition of battery- powered EVs demands. We can already synthesise liquid fuels from a variety of sources that are CO ² neutral at the tailpipe, including using atmospheric carbon to manufacture fuels that can be supplied with existing infrastructure, which every fossil-fuelled vehicle can use without modification³⁶&3⁷. than battery-powered EVs, when power plant It makes far more environmental, economic, and business sense to continue using internal combustion-powered vehicles with steps taken to extend their lifecycle even further than the current UK average. This has to be a better solution than dismantling the entire fleet of ICE transport in favour of the delusional hope of widespread electrification. Demand for the freedom that personal transport provides is obvious given there are 33 million car drivers in the UK. This demand cannot be met by the Government’s proposals, which will effectively ban private vehicle ownership for the masses, because of the extortionate prices of battery- powered EVs. To make such a fundamental change to what is probably the most important mode of transport for families, should require evidence of a clear advantage as a result of wholesale electrification. But that advantage has clearly not been established. Whether the advantage is one of convenience, usability, environmental benefits, or cost, the proposed changes must deliver clear and tangible benefits. Such benefits have yet to be established. It is clear there is a lack of evidence of any benefits or advantages whatsoever to support the idea of a compulsory swap to move the entire country’s vehicle fleet to battery- powered EVs.