Comparison Between Battery Powered Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion-Engine Vehicles Cradle to Grave 15 adopting an unworkable, hyper-expensive gamble that is almost designed to fail due to technological lag that can only survive with the vast taxpayer subsidies that are currently being paid. Subsidising technologies that distort the market, without addressing the fundamental issues of supply and demand, technological capacity, affordability and the laws of physics to no useful gain, is regressive in terms of cost and environmental impact. The real joined-up science demonstrates beyond any doubt, that battery-powered EVs are unlikely to deliver the environmental panacea that is often claimed of them when all factors are taken into account. Assessments of battery-powered EVs have rarely taken into consideration more than the daily use of a vehicle. This historic weakness has distorted policy, as it has concealed the actual, and scientifically verifiable, CO² burden of resourcing the raw materials used from manufacture to end-of-life disposal – let alone the massive upheaval and social costs of providing the support infrastructure. Net Zero – and the relentless goal of pursuing electrification-of-everything – is scientifically lacking; that is, it’s pointless, plus it is now emerging that EVs cannot be repaired if the battery suffers damage⁴⁴. It’s unaffordable, technologically regressive, it’s overloaded with risk, it’s economically unjustifiable when no cost benefit analysis has been either established or published, and the technology is far from meeting the environmental benefits that are claimed. The “Ultralow” EV Emissions Fallacy The assertion is frequently made by the proponents of EVs that they are “ultra-low” or even “zero” emissions vehicles. We have already highlighted (pp.11-12 and Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2), that EVs (taking even the most charitable interpretation) are actually tailpipe emissions displacing vehicles. Sadly, the problem with them does not end there. The largest emissions source for modern vehicles arises from brake & tyre particulates generated particularly under phases of acceleration and braking. On a similar vehicle size comparison basis, EVs (due to having to lug a several hundred kilo battery around wherever the vehicle goes) are heavier, and so markedly worse in this respect, than conventional ones⁴⁵. Given this fact, the proposition that EVs are in any way “zero” or even “ultralow” emissions is factually insupportable. There is no scientifically sound basis under which EVs should be conceded preferential, free access to CAZS, ULEZs etc over conventional vehicles. In fact, a very strong case can be made for the very opposite: conventional vehicles should have free access in preference to EVs. It must, however, be stressed that the epidemiological basis for the demonisation of currently very low (parts per billion) levels of tyre and brake particulates hangs tenuously on attribution studies that infer that health risks arise from them. There is no hard, validated supporting science associated with these assertions⁴⁶. Minerals Did you know that EVs need up to six times more minerals than conventional cars? Tyler Durden, writing for Zero Hedge, looks at the issues relating to minerals⁴⁷. EVs are mineral-intensive and are pushing up demand for critical battery metals. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), lithium, nickel, and cobalt demand is expected to grow from 10%-20% to over 80% by 2030. As countries around the world pledge to go allelectric by 2035 and 2040, Visual Capitalist’s Tessa Di Grandi and Zack Aboulazm discuss whether we have en ough mineral supply for EV demand? Recycling is a partial solution to alleviate critical mineral supply but will fall short of meeting the high levels of demand until around the 2030s⁴⁸.