Coming Bloodbath – Electrification Of Automotive Power-Trains To Wipe Out 114,000 German Jobs, New Analysis Shows

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

German business daily Handelsblatt here reports on a new study that suggests up to 114,000 German automotive related jobs could disappear should the switchover to electric mobility take place as planned.

According to research by the German Labor Market and Occupational Research Institute (IAB) and its publication titled “Electric Mobility 2035“, the study focuses on the economic effects of the phenomenon of electrification of the powertrain in automobiles (e-mobility).

The researchers find that over the long run, e-mobility will lead to a lower GDP and employment level, and that the change in technology may lead “to 114,000 job cuts by the end of 2035”. The report adds: “The whole economy will lose about 0.6 % of the GDP. In the scenario we assume a share of only 23 percent of electric compared to all cars in 2035.”

The following chart (Figure 28) shows the job losses as to industry sectors:

Chart shows change in number of German workers. The most workers will be lost in the vehicle production. Source: QuBe Project, Figure 28.

The findings also say the electrification of automotive power-trains will especially affect highly skilled workers negatively as the demand for specialist and expert activities will decrease with a time delay. Electric vehicles entail much simpler technology, which can be be cheaply produced in emerging countries.

According to the IAB, today less than 5% of German electric cars are imported:

Scenario for the share of imports for electric cars, Source: QuBe Project, Figure 12.

But by 2022, the share of imported electric cars will jump to 40% and then to about 65% by 2035. If true, this means a devastating blow to Germany’s mighty automotive industry – the backbone of the German economy.

Some experts project that buying an electric car will be as straightforward as buying a household appliance, thus eliminating a variety of highly skilled technical jobs. The scale of the job losses that threaten Germany are indeed highly plausible.

But, as is the case with many forecasts looking at the future 15 years ahead, the IAB notes that their scenario “includes a lot of assumptions where further research is necessary”.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

35 responses to “Coming Bloodbath – Electrification Of Automotive Power-Trains To Wipe Out 114,000 German Jobs, New Analysis Shows”

  1. rah

    In the meantime German Auto Companies expand their production in the US and various European countries other than Germany. Germany is the heart of the EU economy and vehicle and machine & tool manufacturing is the heart of the German economy.

    1. SebastianH

      In the context of this article or rather the topic of this article, do you think your comment makes sense? The shift towards EVs will cost traditional jobs in the whole car industry. Every such transition came with the loss of “traditional jobs”. Nobody is working as an ice harvester anymore. Would you prefer such a thing an abolish refrigerators instead?

      1. rah

        Yes it makes sense. EVs have their applications but general over the road use is not one of them and they simply are not practical for most single vehicle families. Tell me, why are the majority of trains diesel electric and not just plain electric? And why are they not already running battery powered trains? Why did Chevy end production of the VOLT? Why are not the fields already filled with battery powered electric farm machinery when tractors and harvesters and such work on a farm not far from where a central charging station could be installed? And why the hell do idiots believe that EVs are “green” when the mining operations for lithium and cobalt and other rare earth components are far from it? And why do idiots believe that fossil fuels are a finite resource but the raw materials needed for batteries are not?
        https://www.dw.com/en/the-true-cost-of-electric-cars/av-46457917

        What do you drive Seb? And why?

        1. SebastianH

          Let’s pick this apart “argument” by “argument”:

          EVs have their applications but general over the road use is not one of them and they simply are not practical for most single vehicle families.

          How so? You can drive hundreds of kilometers with one charge. You can fast charge every few hours while you make a break. Or are you a member of the elusive group of drivers who drive 1000 km without breaks every other day? Then EVs are indeed not yet able to fit your needs.

          Tell me, why are the majority of trains diesel electric and not just plain electric?

          They are? In what country do you live if I may ask? European and asian high speed trains surely aren’t running on Diesel.

          And why are they not already running battery powered trains?

          Why should trains use batteries? Nearly all railroads are electrified.

          Why did Chevy end production of the VOLT?

          Isn’t that the plugin hybrid from GM? I guess it wasn’t doing so well now that there is the Bolt? Quote:
          “General Motors confirmed Monday morning that it plans to cease production of the Chevrolet Volt in March, as part of an effort to streamline production and pivot its business more toward zero-emissions and personal-mobility efforts.”

          Why are not the fields already filled with battery powered electric farm machinery when tractors and harvesters and such work on a farm not far from where a central charging station could be installed?

          Those vehicles do exist, but I am guessing that is still very expensive today as those vehicles don’t travel large distances in their lifes. Maybe when battery prices come further down. We are still at the very beginning of this revolution in transport. Maybe you’ll see more electric farm machinery in 10 years. In the meantime look out for electric busses, delivery vehicles, etc … those drive large distances in their lifes and should make economic sense much sooner (our postal service uses EVs for example).

          And why the hell do idiots believe that EVs are “green” when the mining operations for lithium and cobalt and other rare earth components are far from it?

          Why the need to call others “idiots”? How do you think lithium gets mined? It’s a salt. Cobalt is problematic, I give you that, but batteries keep improving and some manufacturers are suggesting the cobalt free battery is on the horizon. What rare earth components are in battery? Most EVs need those for the magnets in the motors, some don’t (Tesla Model S/X). What is “not green” about using rare earth components?

          And why do idiots believe that fossil fuels are a finite resource but the raw materials needed for batteries are not?

          Again the word “idiots”. Do you believe fossil fuels are an infinite resource? 😉 Well, compared to fossil fuel, a battery does not get burned in the main usage scenario. It and the components it consists of are still there when it reaches end of life. The fossil fuel is gone when you used it.

          Don’t get me wrong, there is much to improve. We are just at the beginning of this transition. But you seem to be somehow stuck with a certain perception of EVs that is not up to date.

          What do you drive Seb? And why?

          Does it matter? If I tell you that I drive a big Diesel SUV will that change EVs? If I tell you that I drive an EV, would you change your mind about EVs? If I don’t answer this question, will you pivot to making this about me being a hypocrite because I want to hide that I too use fossil fuel in my life?

          My car is a gasoline/electricity hybrid, when the weather allows it I ride my bicycle. I am waiting for EVs to become cheaper as well as charging to become more ubiquitous where I live. I currently couldn’t charge at home nor at work which would make it difficult to own an EV. I guess if at least two locations where I regularly park my car would offer charging I’d be willing to switch. What about you, what do you drive? How do you “save the world” as you seemed to complain that using EVs would not be as green as using fossil fuels? 😉

          1. rah

            Let’s pick this apart “argument” by “argument”:
            EVs have their applications but general over the road use is not one of them and they simply are not practical for most single vehicle families.
            How so? You can drive hundreds of kilometers with one charge. You can fast charge every few hours while you make a break. Or are you a member of the elusive group of drivers who drive 1000 km without breaks every other day? Then EVs are indeed not yet able to fit your needs.

            That’s a plain lie! Not a single electric car model reaches the advertised maximum range in every day conditions. Maximum ranges are based on ideal conditions of road and weather and such conditions are very rare in the real world where we drive. Which would you rather be stranded in during a snow storm Seb? In the end the bottom line is that EVs are fine for the everyday commute but when you start talking general use, They SUCK!

            “Why the need to call others “idiots”? How do you think lithium gets mined? It’s a salt. Cobalt is problematic, I give you that, but batteries keep improving and some manufacturers are suggesting the cobalt free battery is on the horizon. What rare earth components are in battery? Most EVs need those for the magnets in the motors, some don’t (Tesla Model S/X). What is “not green” about using rare earth components?”

            You didn’t watch the video link provided did you?

            Rare earth components in EVs: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/forget-lithium-its-rare-earth-minerals-that-are-in-short-supply-for-evs/

            And you claim I have a view of EVs that is behind the times while you don’t even know what critical components are in short supply for EV manufacture? Too funny.

            See you jumped over my questions of why battery driven vehicles aren’t being used in farming and industry. No answer for that eh?

            I did not ask only what you drive but why and that second part of the question is as important as the first.

          2. SebastianH

            That’s a plain lie! Not a single electric car model reaches the advertised maximum range in every day conditions.

            You think it is a lie that EVs can drive hundreds of kilometers per charge? Even a Renault ZOE manages to drive above 200 km per charge in winter. I am not talking about the maximum range given by the manufacturers.

            Which would you rather be stranded in during a snow storm Seb? In the end the bottom line is that EVs are fine for the everyday commute but when you start talking general use, They SUCK!

            I don’t live in a region of this planet where regular snow storms are a thing. But if i were stuck, I would prefer the car with more energy left “in the tank”. How many litres of gasoline does an idle running ICE car consume per hour in a snow storm? And how many kWh does a heat exchanger in an EV consume per hour in the same conditions?

            What is your “general use”? Driving 1000s of kilometers per day? Transporting tons of cargo over those distances?

            You didn’t watch the video link provided did you?

            Rare earth components in EVs:

            Rare Earth elements aren’t rare … that’s just a name, like greenhouse gas effect which doesn’t actually mean that there is a greenhouse.

            And you claim I have a view of EVs that is behind the times while you don’t even know what critical components are in short supply for EV manufacture? Too funny.

            Nothing about this is funny. I know what is included in the production of an EV. It’s a much simpler process which is cheaper to realize at scale than producing ICE cars. You’ll see it at your local car dealer in about a decade at the latest.

            See you jumped over my questions of why battery driven vehicles aren’t being used in farming and industry. No answer for that eh?

            I replied to it, the paragraph appears in my browser in this thread. I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

            I did not ask only what you drive but why and that second part of the question is as important as the first.

            Is it? I drive a hybrid because it saves me money and I can’t drive a pure EV because of the reasons listed above, but it would save me even more money. And as a side effect it would be better for CO2 emissions.

        2. Yonason

          @rah

          troll says “You think it is a lie that EVs can drive hundreds of kilometers per charge? “

          What rah said ” Not a single electric car model reaches the advertised maximum range in every day conditions.”

          NOT THE SAME THING

          The troll just can’t tell the truth about anything. He can’t deal with the claims made, so he has to pretend people are saying something they aren’t in order to have something to criticize them for. (strawman argument)

          troll writes “Even a Renault ZOE manages to drive above 200 km per charge in winter.”

          I don’t have to gas up on long trips with my car packed to the gills until about 480km (~300mi), and then it only takes me about 10-15 minutes to fill up (counting time to exit/re-enter freeway, wait in line, and take a short walk and stretch). I only have to fill up 2 times on the road before my destination (and once after arriving. My avg long trip about 1450km).

          With an EV that got 200 km to a charge, I’d have to “fill up” about 7 TIMES!!!, and it would take a lot longer than 10-15 minutes per recharge, assuming I could find one. Instead of being able to make the trip in 2 days, it could require up to a week. And every extra day is an extra night in a hotel, which is an added expense.

          How do YOU spell I.N.S.A.N.I.T.Y?

          Greenies do not have anyone’s best interest at heart.

          1. SebastianH

            Yonason, way to go on making something up that isn’t there. Look again what rah called a lie. Indeed, his remark that cars don’t reach the mileage given by the manufacturer has nothing to do with what I wrote.

            Insanity is taking long trips like this by car. Take the train, it is more efficient, faster and you can do stuff while traveling!

            People and their anecdotes about regularly driving 1000s of miles/kilometers … yeah, EVs aren’t for you, but then you are unicorns. Nobody does what you does on a regular basis …

          2. Yonason

            Troll writes: “Insanity is taking long trips like this by car. Take the train, it is more efficient, faster and you can do stuff while traveling!”

            Naturally they never consider that when one arrives at one’s destination one just might need transportation while there. Car rentals are EXPENSIVE! The only way I’d have a car at my destination would be if I drove my own there, which is why I do it: not to mention how much I bring with me that I couldn’t bring by train or plane or bus.

            Just another e.g., of how much thought the no-it-all Lefties put into solving other peoples’ problems, none at all.

            They care nothing about how their crazy schemes affect others; like when Leftists tax it’s citizens to the point of making them riot, and then wondering why they are so upset. Now THAT’S insanity!

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Only way Merkel can get Germans to buy overpriced electric golf carts is if she bans everything else. Maybe she can call it the Trabant Law.

    1. SebastianH

      I don’t think you realize how things are now and how they will change in the next decade regarding car usage. The electric vehicle will inevitably cost less than a comparable fossil fuel car (total costs). And we are not talking about electric golf carts here. Hiding behind this big skeptic rock again, are we?

      @Pierre: I don’t get the negativity of this article … “coming bloodbath”? Isn’t it supposed to be a good thing to be able to produce something with fewer workers because it is simpler than what we had before? This seems to be more about German manufacturers not being able to keep pace with the competition. We’ll see about that … the next 5 years will be very interesting as at least VW has announced to build an EV that costs the same as its fossil fuel counterpart.

      1. Bruce of Newcastle

        Lol. I’m a chemist Seb. I’ve done real electrolysis experiments on at least 5 metals. I’ve some electrolytic silver and cadmium in bottles somewhere in my house. The silver is especially pretty as it comes out as crystals from AgNO3 electrolyte.

        Read up on energy density. It’s a hard wired thing, like chemistry and physics are.

        I’d be saner to make methanol from CO2, water and electricity and use that in cars instead.

        1. SebastianH

          Lol. I’m a chemist Seb.

          You keep emphasizing this, yet you write comments like this. I think you are not up to date on the topics you feel qualified to comment on as a chemist.

          Read up on energy density. It’s a hard wired thing, like chemistry and physics are.

          What about energy density? Are you trying to argue against the fact that today’s EVs can easily drive hundreds of kilometers on a charge? And they don’t need 500 kWh battery packs to achieve that (the average energy from 50 litres of gasoline in a car’s gas tank).

          I’d be saner to make methanol from CO2, water and electricity and use that in cars instead.

          Define “sane” please! Is it sane to waste electricity for such a convertion? You need about 3 times as many kWh from a wind turbine or solar panel to drive the same distance if you go that route vs. using batteries in the car. How is that saner?

          1. Bruce of Newcastle

            Saner means economically feasible whilst achieving the aims that the warmies aim for. Try doing an NPV for each option. It’s what I have to do for project financial analysis.

            I never said you would use solar panels and wind turbines. Especially not the latter, which are a foul and hypocritical evil.

            No the option I’ve mentioned several times on blogs is nuclear methanol.

            But we’ve got plenty of fossil fuel, CO2 is harmless, so buckle up and hit the gas until we run out. Then we can switch to methanol about three millennia from now.

          2. SebastianH

            Saner means economically feasible whilst achieving the aims that the warmies aim for. Try doing an NPV for each option. It’s what I have to do for project financial analysis.

            It is not economically feasible to waste energy. For any non grid connected application that can make use of batteries since they typically don’t use more than one charge per use and/or can recharge in between uses (e.g. laptops, phones and cars, but probably not long distance planes or ships) it is more economical to use batteries. For the simple fact that you are only wasting around 20% of the original electricity and not 60% to 70% as with conversion to hydrogen or methane/methanol.

            No the option I’ve mentioned several times on blogs is nuclear methanol.

            “Assuming low-carbon electricity at $75/MW […]”, what kind of assumption is that and why is the unit wrong? It also doesn’t include any taxes. Hydrogen gas stations exist today. They use hydrogen derived from fossil fuels because it is cheaper than electrolysis. It’s basically tax-free and still costs 9.50€ per kg. This is not sane …

            It is always more economical to charge a battery instead of wasting electricity on electrolysis. When all batteries are charged one can generate hydrogen from the surplus electricity.

            But we’ve got plenty of fossil fuel, CO2 is harmless, so buckle up and hit the gas until we run out. Then we can switch to methanol about three millennia from now.

            It’s not about the scarcity of fossil fuel, it is about sustainability and CO2 is not harmless regarding the effect it has on the climate. You are a chemist, you should have an idea of the physical properties of CO2 and the so called greenhouse effect.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            It’s not about the scarcity of fossil fuel, it is about sustainability

            Can you explain what’s “sustainable” about covering a landscape with 164-ton towers made of cement and steel that break down regularly, with blades that cannot be recycled, thus creating 340 million tonnes of non-degradable blade waste over the next few decades? In the winter time, the turbines have to be de-iced in cold climates, and because they only operate intermittently – when the wind blows – they have to be backed up with fossil fuel power anyway. In other words, the more wind turbines built, the more sustainable need for fossil fuel backup. For every 1% increase in wind power capacity, there is a 0.25% increase in fossil fuel energy required to back it up (Marques et al., 2018) Not to mention the habitat destruction and threat to endangered wildlife (they kill 3-5 million bats a year). What is “sustainable” about all this?

            and CO2 is not harmless regarding the effect it has on the climate.

            I’ve asked you this before, and all you can say that CO2 is harmful because of “Global warming!” Even if CO2 does control the heat content of the world’s oceans (and we have no real-world evidence or quantified result telling us how much of an effect CO2 has — it’s effectively an assumption), why do you believe that warmth is bad? Why do you believe warmth is biologically more harmful than cold?

            You are a chemist, you should have an idea of the physical properties of CO2 and the so called greenhouse effect.

            Here’s a paper written by 3 chemists…

            Hertzberg et al., 2017
            “The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.”

          4. Bruce of Newcastle

            Seb – Batteries have an energy density a tenth of methanol, and a twentieth of gasoline. They also last about 8 years and die, whereupon you have to get another one. They are very expensive because they are very complex.

            A methanol tank in a car is just a chunk of cast plastic. Very cheap. It lasts as long as the car. My last car I traded in age 23 years old, which would be three batteries worth.

            And a methanol production plant lasts 50 years or more. The cadmium plant from whence I got my piece of cadmium was over 100 years old because it wasn’t worth rebuilding and they couldn’t shut it down because the cadmium would then represent an environmental problem worse than the maintenance cost of the plant.

            So you are comparing extremely expensive large complex batteries which require continual replacement versus long lived centralised production plants which are quite simple (methanol is two steps, three if you include CO2 harvesting).

            That is what NPV and life cycle analyses are for. It is what we do in industry for every investment. If the warmies did this sort of analysis not only the economics would be better but the environmental footprint would be too.

          5. SebastianH

            Can you explain what’s “sustainable” about […]

            Everything that provides us with high value energy (e.g. electricity) will have an effect on the environment and used resources. It is orders more sustainable than continuing to use fossil fuel forever.

            For every 1% increase in wind power capacity, there is a 0.25% increase in fossil fuel energy required to back it up

            Fossil fuel energy generation! The last word is important. Using wind power doesn’t increase the amount of fossil fuel that gets burned.

            What is “sustainable” about all this?

            You ask this question as if the current way of using mainly fossil fuels is sustainable. That only works if you do the mind acrobatics to tell yourself CO2 emissions are not causing warming and/or that warming isn’t a problem at all 😉

            why do you believe that warmth is bad? Why do you believe warmth is biologically more harmful than cold?

            For the hundredths time, why are you trying to put global warming against cooling? The question is will further increases of the heat content be bad compared to today’s heat content level or not. Nobody is talking about a decrease of the heat content.

            Here’s a paper written by 3 chemists…

            I believed we discussed this one already. It was fun to read with what those guys came up with to argue against the GHE. Good for you if you believe those chemists that the concept of a greenhouse gas has not been demonstrated. Everyone else laughes about a paper that includes such hilarious claims as in “Definition 3” that the concept of something cool causing warming of something warmer would violate the laws of thermodynamics. I guess those three chemists never used an oven or have no idea how the concept of an oven and its insulation works 😉

            @Bruce:

            Batteries have an energy density a tenth of methanol, and a twentieth of gasoline.

            True, but you can still drive around 300 to 400 km on a reasonable sized battery, they don’t really need to grow in capacity or energy density, the important part is that the price comes down further.

            They also last about 8 years and die, whereupon you have to get another one.

            Batteries last a lot longer than 8 years in EVs. Even at one complete discharge per day that’s only 3000 cycles. All major car manufacturers have an 8 year warranty on the battery pack, that doesn’t mean they will need replacements after 8 years.

            They are very expensive because they are very complex.

            Batteries are super simple. And the price drop in recent years has been massive because of scaling up production. You can buy cheap cells online and build your own battery pack with ease. In fact many have done so for upgrading their bicycles with an electric motor, me included.

            A methanol tank in a car is just a chunk of cast plastic. Very cheap. It lasts as long as the car.

            Most batteries will outlive the cars as well and will have an after life as stationary battery storages.

            So you are comparing extremely expensive large complex batteries which require continual replacement versus long lived centralised production plants which are quite simple (methanol is two steps, three if you include CO2 harvesting).

            No, I am comparing a highly efficient system of storing energy to one where most of the original energy is lost in the process. This loss outweights the benefits of it being “just a simple tank”.

            That is what NPV and life cycle analyses are for. It is what we do in industry for every investment. If the warmies did this sort of analysis not only the economics would be better but the environmental footprint would be too.

            I am afraid you aren’t looking at the massive losses of those energy conversions involved in methanol production (from electricity). Even if the facilities and tanks cost nothing, the waste would eventually amount to what you pay for batteries and more. Every high school student can write the equation down to get to that conclusion.

            Here is a simple flow chart for you:
            https://energypost.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Hydrogen-vs-EV-redlight-640×356.jpg

            And that’s only for using hydrogen as storage. Now imagine you add even more losses by converting it to methanol. It makes no sense to go that route vor vehicles than can stop every few hundred kilometers to recharge (e.g. not ships or planes).

          6. Kenneth Richard

            It [wind turbine energy] is orders more sustainable than continuing to use fossil fuel forever.

            Please explain why you believe wind energy is “orders” (100 times) more sustainable than natural gas considering wind energy…

            …covers pristine landscapes with hundreds of 164-ton towers made of cement and steel that break down regularly, with blades that cannot be recycled, thus creating 340 million tonnes of non-degradable blade waste over the next few decades. In the winter time, the turbines have to be de-iced in cold climates, and because they only operate intermittently – when the wind blows – they have to be backed up with fossil fuel power anyway. In other words, the more wind turbines built, the more sustainable need for fossil fuel backup. For every 1% increase in wind power capacity, there is a 0.25% increase in fossil fuel energy required to back it up (Marques et al., 2018) Not to mention the habitat destruction and threat to endangered wildlife (they kill 3-5 million bats a year).

            Support your belief that wind energy is 100 times more sustainable than natural gas. Just claiming it is without evidence is all you’ve done here. Back it up.

            do the mind acrobatics to tell yourself CO2 emissions are not causing warming and/or that warming isn’t a problem at all

            What real-world evidence do you have that higher CO2 emissions from humans cause harm to the planet or the biosphere…especially since the +75 ppm CO2 since the 1980s hasn’t had a detectable impact that could be traced to anthropogenic perturbation against the backdrop of natural variability? Every time I ask this you present nothing. All you do is repeat your claims or point out that the climate catastrophes are predicted to occur someday in the future. That’s hardly convincing.

            For the hundredths time, why are you trying to put global warming against cooling?

            At what point did we or will we exceed the “optimal” warmth threshold? Would you agree that it was too cold during the Little Ice Age, when crop failures and shorter growing seasons and megadroughts led to famines and misery? If so, when did we sufficiently rise out of that non-optimal/too-cold temperature to reach the non-optimal/too-warm temperature threshold? You have yet to answer this question, so your “for the hundredths time” is disingenuous.

            The question is will further increases of the heat content be bad compared to today’s heat content level or not.

            That’s the question, yes. Do we have a definitive answer…considering it’s been much warmer in the very recent past than currently? Why is it your belief that returning to a Medieval level of heat content would be “bad”? Have we reached “bad” yet…or are we still on the way there?

            Good for you if you believe those chemists that the concept of a greenhouse gas has not been demonstrated.

            The “concept” of a greenhouse effect has been “demonstrated” in modeling and “thought experiments”. Conceptualization is what we have, yes.

          7. Yonason

            @Kenneth Richard 10. December 2018 at 7:42 PM

            You ask SebH reasonable and sensible questions. He either responds with activist gibberish, or doesn’t respond at all. I’m beginning to think that when he looks at what you’ve written in plain English, that this is what he sees.

          8. SebastianH

            Please explain why you believe wind energy is “orders” (100 times) more sustainable than natural gas considering wind energy…

            You don’t need to repeat yourself, I am very well aware what you imagine wind turbines to be.

            Support your belief that wind energy is 100 times more sustainable than natural gas. Just claiming it is without evidence is all you’ve done here. Back it up.

            Needs less resources per kWh, already cheaper in many markets, no CO2 emissions while operating.

            What real-world evidence do you have that higher CO2 emissions from humans cause harm to the planet or the biosphere

            Read about every report/study on climate change. It will have a list of the already occuring effects.

            Every time I ask this you present nothing.

            Ehm, it is you who “presents nothing”. You write questions based on some cherry picked papers that you liked as if those claims were established somehow.

            At what point did we or will we exceed the “optimal” warmth threshold?

            Huh? The “optimal” warmth is the one we are currently adapted to. Every change in either direction requires adaptation and in the more extreme cases adaptation is very costly (not only in monetary terms).

            You have yet to answer this question, so your “for the hundredths time” is disingenuous.

            No, i don’t have to answer a constructed question that has nothing to do with the problem at hand. People deal with what they have. If it were a few degrees cooler on average people would not have settled where agriculture would not be able to support them. When climate changes, problems occur.

            That’s the question, yes. Do we have a definitive answer…considering it’s been much warmer in the very recent past than currently?

            We have a definitive answer that a modern multi billion humans civilization would be just fine when it is “much warmer”? Great. Argument settled, let’s emit as much CO2 as we can … scientists obviously didn’t notice this.

            Why is it your belief that returning to a Medieval level of heat content would be “bad”?

            We have surpased medieval levels of surface temperatures already, surpassing the heat content is only a question of time (integrated imbalance over time).

            It’s “bad” because we build our civilization for the current climate. Adapting to another climate is costly (not only in monetary terms).

            The “concept” of a greenhouse effect has been “demonstrated” in modeling and “thought experiments”. Conceptualization is what we have, yes.

            Nope, you can actually measure the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Don’t act like you have to actually measure the temperature change in water when you change the CO2 concentration over that body of water. Proposing impossible experiments in an attempt to claim that “we don’t actually know” is ridiculous. If not, I want you to show me the measurements of the gravitational effects on a man made object orbiting a neighboring star in close proximity. If you are not able to show me those observations I will assume the concept of gravity is something that doesn’t apply everywhere. See how that works?

      2. Moose

        “The electric vehicle will inevitably cost less than a comparable fossil fuel car (total costs).”

        No they are and will not.

        As EV are being heavily subsidized and gas heavily taxed there is no way that in a level playing field these golf carts are cheaper compared to normal cars.

        1. SebastianH

          As EV are being heavily subsidized and gas heavily taxed there is no way that in a level playing field these golf carts are cheaper compared to normal cars.

          One by one:
          1) I was not talking about the present
          2) You are comparing a subsidy on the vehicle with a tax on the fuel? Is electricity subsidized too? The subsidy on the EVs will not last forever.
          3) “level playing field”? Are you suggesting states should drop the fuel taxes to the level of electricity taxes? Doesn’t change that a gasoline car uses up to 3 times as much energy and thus would need to pay 3 times the amount of taxes for the same distance anyway.
          4) “normal car”: what is a normal car? The average price for a car in Germany is 31400 € … is that a normal car for you?

          Of course it will take some time until EVs can be cheaper compared to a Renault Twingo or Kia Picanto, but they surely will be cheaper in the Golf class (mind you, not “golf cart” class) in the next decade. How can they not? Building an EV is much simpler than building a gasoline car …

        2. Yonason

          Yeah, Mooose. SebH wasn’t talking about the present. LOL

          Have you no vision?! //;-0)

          Oh, oh. THIS JUST IN!

          Now that throws a spanner into the works, doesn’t it!

          OK, Show’s over. Everyone go home. Last one out turn out the lights.

      3. John

        “The electric vehicle will inevitably cost less than a comparable fossil fuel car (total costs).”

        No they are and will not.

        As EV are being heavily subsidized and gas heavily taxed there is no way that in a level playing field these golfcarts are cheaper compared to normal cars.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    What is the career span of a German worker? Perhaps 40 years?
    So a third of those will retire by 2035, and another 1/3 are young and can easily retrain. If EVs get only 23% of sales by 2035 there will be plenty of work left for the remaining third.
    What’s the problem?
    It seems like these folks have assumed German industrial activities should remain as developed in the 20th Century. A few reads about the history of the world since Thomas Savery and 1698 are recommended.

  4. Henning Nielsen

    I’m sure German power suppliers are longing to fuel the country’s cars.

    e-mobility = expensive mobility.

  5. Yonason

    Leftists blame natural disasters on AGW, and their “solutions” are
    _to make forests more susceptible to fire,
    _to narrow escape routes to create choke points,
    _TO mandate electric vehicles which won’t go the distance and will add to the blockage of escape routes.
    https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/the-way-we-see-itour-blog/agenda-21-road-diets-in-california-fire-likely-caused-deaths

    (Only the first two items are dealt with there, but if you add EVs to the mix, the consequences are obvious.)

    Everything Leftists do causes harm. And ultimately a LOT of harm.
    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=234528

    Nothing they do is of benefit to anyone but themselves.

    Everything they know is wrong. Everything they do is evil. EVERYTHING!

  6. Colin MacDonald

    If electric cars require less manpower to manufacture and maintain that’s surely an advantage. I used to think the battery life was a deal breaker, however I learn that Tesla battery backs still have around 85percent capacity after 130,000miles. To put that into perspective my Diesel Fiat has done 90,000miles but I’m conscious that a fairly innocuous engine fault could right it off, and most cars don’t make it past 100,000miles before being scrapped. The complexity of a modern Turbo Diesel engine may benefit the bank balances if mechanics but not their owners.
    As for their limited range I see no major problems with having stop for an hour or two every five hours.
    I do however think that the upfront purchase cost of these cars is a problem although I think it likely that costs will come down to approach those of ICE cars.
    I think electric cars do fail as an low carbon alternative to conventional cars. If we were to go 100% electric, we would need to add addition power generation, and at the moment that would have to be from fossil fuels, coal basically.

    1. Yonason

      Sure would help if you pair those claims up with some references, Colin. I’ve never seen anything claiming such phenomenal battery life, but would be happy to have it as a reference if it’s real.

      Thanks in advance.

    2. John Brown

      If left with the only option to use electric cars, these and electricity will become much more expensive than currently so.
      Reasons are as follows:

      1. Tax on fuel is major factor of income for all states and countries, take IC engines of the road and the tax offices will be screaming for other taxes. Guess what they will have in mind!
      2. A lot of countries (still) subsidize electric cars, allow them to run tax free, receive free charges. For a complete swing in personal transport towards electric vehicles this will with 100% certainty mean this will end and we will have to fork out money for nice new and high tax schemes.
      3. Anybodies guess how we will finance road maintenance if nobody pays fuel taxes or car registrations, right?
      4. Once electric vehicles start draining the energy networks at inopportune times, like “I got home darling, just charging the car and we can have dinner!” we will realize that the networks are not made for “rushhour’ charges.
      5. Just wait for the electric vehicle cast system. Major brand vehicles or VIP’s will have privileged charging times. Alternatively we will burn much more coal than we ever would have otherwise 🙂

      Whoever thinks electric personal transport will reduce the personal or even costs for the society has not thought the whole thing through!

      1. Yonason

        As to your “4. Once electric vehicles start draining the energy networks at inopportune times, like “I got home darling, just charging the car and we can have dinner!” we will realize that the networks are not made for “rushhour’ charges.”

        Considering the challenge of dealing with tea time in the UK,
        https://youtu.be/WC8z9GTQOYA?t=420
        I can only imagine the chaos that will be when everyone gets home from work and plugs in their electric go-cart.

        With all wind and no backup, Brits will just have to forgo their tea, I guess, …and probably the electric cars, as well.

        1. John Brown

          How much does it take to deprive the Brits of their tea?

          Lets change society, learn to live at night, because we charge the cars in the day time.
          No lets learn to live without cars!

          Maybe back to living in caves? Ups forgot there wont be light, lets burn more candles or good old torches.

          Just no more tea for Brits and lets see how far we get!

  7. “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #338 | Watts Up With That?
  8. “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #338 – Cyberhomesblog.com

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close