Cradle to Grave Comparison Between Battery Powered Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion-Engine Vehicles 14 The proposals to phase out ICE vehicles from 2030 lack any valid economic, social, environmental or operational basis and we believe, beyond any doubt, that this misguided policy should be reversed. Even the best possible case for battery-powered EVs is still not good enough for the country’s needs. The Problems of UK Grid Capacity The National Grid has to be balanced between demand and supply on a minute-by-minute basis. There are already significant limitations over the storage of electricity. Whether the technology is via batteries, hydro, compressed air, or other methods, it is expensive to deploy and always involves energy losses in the transmission of power to the end users³⁸&39. To use wind and solar power will always require some form of stable back-up, as these two intermittent sources can never meet the country’s total energy requirements, and they are wholly dependent on complementary conventional or nuclear power to meet demand. In fact, renewables are literally parasitic on the back of conventional gas-, or coal generation capacity; both of which deliver without windmills or solar panels. When the wind blows or the sun shines, renewables push other, more stable and efficient sources off the Grid, at two to three times the price to the consumer, which reduces our global industrial competitiveness. The carbon impact of constructing combined cycle gas turbine generation (CCGT) or battery back-up for renewables must be accounted for in the calculations of the CO ² cost of wind and solar power. Intermittent renewables require 100% matching CCGT, coal or nuclear, otherwise extensive battery back-up would be needed across the entire country. The city of Melbourne, in Australia, has invested in a 300 MW battery farm at a cost of over £64 million – but it is not without problems, and in the event of a power outage, it will provide electricity to a million homes for about twentynine minutes⁴⁰. To replicate this scenario across the entire UK will cost the taxpayer untold trillions of pounds for just a few minutes back-up – and it will place ‘all our eggs in one basket’. As a source of national energy security, we believe this is a seriously-flawed strategy. Unless the always on-demand capacity of the National Grid is expanded by tens-of-gigawatts of new capacity, there won’t be enough power to accommodate the proposed growth in battery-powered EV ownership, and that’s according to the Government-sponsored ‘FIRES’ report, lead-authored by Cambridge University academics⁴1. There simply isn’t the time available for that Grid expansion to occur before the artificial deadline of 2030; not least because we are actively denying ourselves base load capacity by the closure of coal, gas and nuclear power stations⁴2&43. These problems can only worsen given this arguably reckless continuing phase-out of reliable conventional generation sources. In fact, grid intensity factors already seriously challenge the environmental credentials of BEVs (see Appendix 1,Table 2). So we must conclude that the real consequence of the Net Zero scheme will be to deny the electorate the right to freedom of personal travel, freedom of association and the freedom of choice - which appears to be tantamount to a political decision to eliminate private vehicle ownership. If electricity has to be generated and batteries have to be produced, what can possibly be wrong with in parallel exploiting and further developing existing carbon-neutral synthetic hydrocarbon manufacturing technology, as is currently happening in Germany? Then transport's CO ² emissions to atmosphere are entirely eliminated as a source of concern. The technology exists, the funding could be made available, and we already have the supply infrastructure in filling stations. What we lack is the political will to allow a range of existing and emerging alternative technologies to develop. Instead, we are