วีดีโอ

The boom seems to be waning, but it is still important to change from oil. It has to be done in an intelligent way.

Mainstream media is not covering the aspects I highlight.

Much bigger investments in infrastructure will be needed. It is only a matter of calculating the need for chargers, electricity and power capacity in grids to see that these investments are lagging behind.

@@matslarsson1115 From what I've read the biggest problem that the US has is tying all the grid together with energy sources - so that if one end of the country is running out of sun, wind and batteries, then they can get electricity from the other side of the country.

The workforce will not shrink rapidly enough for the problem of unemployment to disappear.

We need transportation on a large scale and for this we need energy, charging infrastructure etc. We of course need to implement clean energy sources, but it has to be done in a structured way.

Changing many things at once into an entirely new configuration of resources in the near future will inevitably require management of the change process. I'm very much in favour of the change to electric vehicles, but regardless of what we want to change, we need to manage the process. Specific results cannot be created through random processes.

​@@matslarsson1115 "random processes" is a strawman of a response typical of oil shills who refuse to talk about the real plans and their progress. NEVER do you talk about real solutions. You only sow doubts, never actual solutions that may need greater resource. say.

Yes, there are many opportunities, but the change to a better future will not happen by itself. The change needs to be managed.

@@matslarsson1115 Always the negative. NEVER the solutions. You feed the oil lobby what they want.

Yes, the range of electric vehicles is only one aspect that needs to improve to make electromobility successful.

What exactly would be wrong? Banning the sales of petrol and diesel vehicles will clearly make a lot of people unemployed.

@@matslarsson1115 ...and????

@@matslarsson1115 Where did you get that from? Please provide your sources for this nonesense! This has a strong aroma of disinformation and snells like propaganda for a very specific political goal to me. Have you cross checked that before your post and validated the references? Are your sources for this information credible and trustworthy? Do you really believe such claims? If some information you have read online was able to manipulate your emotions and had a noticeable influence to your current mood, then you have to be allways very, very cautious with it and take some additional steps before reposting anything about this topic with your own online accounts. Check, double Check and validate. Then try to confirm your results and talk to someone about the way you try to avoid the spreading of disinformation and fake news each and every day! Really, tell someone else and talk to people in real life. Touch some grass, wood or stones. Check out how they taste and validate they are in fact nothing you can eat nor the best replacement of fast food for vegetarians that care about meat. ❤️ that !

The demand for electric vehicles is still very low and the cost of making them is higher than the price indicates. It will be a problem for all of us if the manufacturers go out of business. They employ a lot of people.

@matslarsson1115 Still their problem for being too big and heavy and stubborn to change. Why did it take a software company to show them how to build cars quickly and efficiently? Plus 15 to 20 years in and they are still not listening. The British Motorcycle Industry was the same.... refusing to listen, adapt or invest in getting better. They are now gone.

@@mikadavies660 fossil fuel, fuels fossils.

Very well said. I totally agree.

It is not only about the quality of the cars. The cars are great and I drive an eV myself. The problem is the lack of planning of the transformation that will make a lot of people unemployed and there is not enough electricity to make it possible to power the majority of vehicles.

@matslarsson1115 Those that assemble ICE will assemble gearbox & electric motors. The EV will demand less labour. It should be cheaper to make & sell.

People have said innovations cause unemployment since the invention of the spinning Jenny. It has never turned about to be true, nor will it with EVs. Newer Industries replace older ones. The National Grid is not concerned about EV load. EVs charge at night when the grid is near idle and there is plenty of spare capacity even if we don't add new generation capacity, which the UK is adding. Neither of these concerns are valid.

This is deeply flawed biology. Yep, increased CO2 enhances growth if other nutrients, also needed, are available. When not, things can go badly wrong. Most plant crops get overtaken with weeds as often as not in controlled studies. Some plants simply decline. Glasshouse production of salad vegetables where CO2 is injected to enhance growth can also uplift other nutrients and water supply. Interestingly the amounts of CO2 needed for effect vary widely with species. Some are intolerant, some indifferent and need huge doses for any growth uplift. Besides what kind of stupid bait and switch argument is this anyway? Arrhenius showed the heat trapping of particular IR wavelengths and core concern is simply temperature elevation, sea-level changes from thermal expansion and land ice melting, enhanced weather pattern extremes, thermo-haline collapses, growing plankton demise, methane release leading to higher temperatures making vast areas uninhabitable, population migration, which I suspect you might not be too keen on? Russia does well out of it though...

Yes, the type of large-scale change that is now underway will have very serious consequences for the economy of the EU countries.

@@matslarsson1115 Fossil money everywhere is hobbling the evolution of the new sustainable technologies we need.

difficult when they still stand at 50% of new cars even in some European countries. I much prefer my present car to an overengineered thing it now turns out has kill switches and 'zone limiters' built in or added through 'upgrades'. And for infrastructure reasons they are far away in many countries.

I drive an eV and I'm very happy with it. The problem is that a lot of resources will be needed for the change. Power, grid capacity and other key resources will not suffice. Not enough people with the right competence are available. Few people understand the scale of the change.

Yes, infrastructure cannot be expanded rapidly enough for everyone to be able to drive an electric car. Not enough electricity or grid capacity is available and it will take decades to expand.

I'm 60 and if I keep using my 1999 model car until I die (let's assume I have another 30 years) I will very likely cause considerably less pollution than if I was to buy a new EV and be able to always charge it using 'renewable' electricity, assuming of course that it's possible to buy such an EV that will last the distance. The vasy majority of EV evangilists simply have no concept of how much pollution must be created to produce the modern crap they call cars, EVs are the absolute worst of all cars as far as emissions created in order to produce them.

To drive all 245 million cars and millions of trucks and buses on electricity will require very large investments. I'm not against development and I'm not in favour of stagnation, but making millions of people unemployed to change to electric vehicles when there is not enough capacity to charge them all is madness.

@@matslarsson1115 We are already starting to see overprovision of renewables. In the UK, fossil lobby pressure has stopped these occasions (eg. night-time wind!) from being put to economic use by insisting electricity costs are tied to the cost of gas. This directly hobbles investment in my current industry (agribusiness) and in the installation of topical energy storage, one of the first mitigations where a smart load can couple to a smarter grid. Oil shills everywhere pretending there aren't other ways of doing things. That this new technology can only be a component for component swap-out of old (fossil) technology is the cleverest deception by omission you folk achieve. Besides your base argument about jobs has the informational content I get to hear down the pub at the end of the evening.

A lot of resrouces and planning will be needed to drive this type of large-scale change forward. It seems to be very difficult for people to understand the scale of this change and the consequences of a failure.

@@matslarsson1115 It seems very clear that you haven't the faintest idea of the vast scale of research and planning that has gone into this evolutionary process, or won't admit to it. Sure the stumbling blocks most often are oil-lobbied politicians. You, also, are part of the plan (witting or unwitting), keeping the arguments small scale and "common sense".

I have written 7 internationally published books about the large-scale changes to electric vehicles and a circular economy, exploring the amount of resources that will be needed for these changes.

@@matslarsson1115 Meaningless claim. I have no doubt you can spout opinion. The point is what you know, how you got it and how up to date it is. I designed line test equipment for Power Utilities, large battery test rigs, new drive-by wire enabling tech for all major automakers (Detroit and Europe), circular economy products in power, lighting and control, and currently greening nickel refining and water treatment. The work being done is vast, but your opinion piece seemed devoid of information. Want to discuss REE extraction from Coal Fly Ash? Or thousand kilometre HVDC transmission turning a supergrid into a battery? Or sodium ion batteries becoming the topical fuel storge we've needed? Hand wavy wailing during a primary paradigm shift isn't helping anyone.

Creating a favourable climate for investments in electric vehicle development and production will be very important for the EU, rather than fining companies for not complying with impossible change measures.

Fossil fuels can only be a monopolized leash on society. Electricity can be made many ways. Electricity can be DIY. Several potential possibilities exist involving free electricity. Gasaholeline costs far too much to create. Nothing is environmentally friendly about fossil juice. ICE are pathetically inefficient compared to electric. Big $ selling power. The grid will adapt. Shell now converting gas stations to charger stations Say no to more Gulf oil spills. Say no to abandoned oil wells Say no to microplastics in YOUR water. The good future is electric.

Just keep looking after your horse and cart. Motorcars will never catch on.

Unfortunately, the change to eVs is driven in a way that is not sustainable. We need to change to electric vehicles, but it needs to be done in a systematic way where the capacity for power generation and grid capacity etc will be expanded ahead of the expansion of vehicle fleets.

It is not about the choices of vehicles or fuels, it is about building a strong new vehicle industry based on electric vehicles, and industry that can compete against the Chinese and Tesla on equal terms. This has to take time.

Not sure we do need to change to EVs. They're not really fit for purpose for many. We just need the choice

The change to electric vehicles should have been started much earlier. Banning the sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035 will not be possible and it will crash the economy of the EU. Governments need to support the expansion of infrastructure in ways that are not planned at present.

The EU has many benefits, but the large-scale decision making for all European countries can do a lot of harm when politicians and business leaders don't understand the consequences of their decisions.

@@matslarsson1115 For ordinary people, the EU is a pure disaster.

What on earth are you talking about? Nowhere in the video is the assumption made that all vehicles will be charge simultaneously. That would be an utterly absurd assumption. The man is simply pointing out what EV-apologists have been desperately ignoring all the time, that we do not have the power generation to change over to a complete national EV-fleet within the government specified time. And the problem of delivering that extra power through a hopelessly under dimensioned grid hasn't even been mentioned yet. I personally estimate we'll be able to generate enough power earliest in 50 years time if the government immediately starts building new power plants.

@@mikethespike7579 You use of the term "EV apologist" showcase your cognitive biases. That's actually the opposite, nowhere in the video did he ever mention peak hours, or when the vehicles are charged, which is a pretty important factor to determine if a power grid requires upgrades... Then again, if you double the grid usage but in the hours where there is plenty of capacity available, then you don't need more capacity. It's that simple. Only a small fraction of electric vehicles will be charged during peak hours every day. That's only this small fraction that will require grid upgrades. The number he claimed is not realistic. 50% more capacity needed in the United States? Weird because if you take the California grid - which is often brought up by people when the "the grid can't handle EVs" claim comes up - well, the California Energy Commission actually made the math and took into account the peak and off peak, and they expect they will need around 10% more capacity by 2035 for charging 12.5 millions electric vehicles. Now, explain how he can come up with a number that's 5 times bigger if he's really accounting for the time of the day electric vehicles will be charged. It just seems he made a simplistic calculation such as "X electric vehicles consuming Y amount of power, oh we then need Z more capacity". That's not how it works. Upgrades will be needed. But too many people over-exaggerate that amount needed.

@@HCkevThe word "apologist" is legitimate terminology for someone fully committed to a policy. Sorry if you don't like it. Your explanation shows just how little you understand of what is being demanded of the electrical infrastructure. It's completely irrelevant what math some commission has done on the subject. Physics cannot be cheated on. And even if we really need "only" 10% more energy, the infrastructure for this will take about 20 years to build. Maybe one day we'll have fully transitioned to EVs, but not in the next 30 to 50 years. Anything shorter is pure wishful thinking.

I can only speak for the UK. In the UK we have 31,000,000 road vehicles. They do an average of about 8,000 miles a year. At about 3 miles per kWh that is about 60-65twh per year. Less if you take into account the power save by not refining the oil. Now last year the UK used a total of 317twh DOWN from 375twh in 2007. So about 380twh per year when EVERY car is an EV. 380twh is well within the capacity of TODAY'S grid. Every car being an EV is over 20 year away at current adoption rates

@@patdbean Your maths are far too simple. And I don't believe that 8000 miles car/year. That is probably nearer to the minimum a car does a year. But let's take you example anyway. You only mention power generation. Power generation though isn't the problem. It's the power grid, the bit that delivers the power from the power plant to the customers. It's far from able to deliver all the power that a national EV fleet needs. It's calculated that the UK will need 50 billion pounds to upgrade it, would take 50 years to do and cause havoc in the streets during that time. We might not even have enough copper for the cables. You don't take into account, that only 20% to 30% of car owners have driveways where they can charge their vehicles over night. What do you suggest the rest do to charge their cars over night? The whole EV thing collapses like a house of cards when it comes to details. The future will be that a few cars drivers will run EVs and the rest will driving ICEs.

It seems like a too high estimate. With 135 billion gallons of gasoline produced in a year in the US, that would imply that the refineries would use 600 TWh of the electricity generated in the country, 15% of the total. As I checked it up I found that refineries in the US use 4% of power generation and this seems to cover the needs both for producing gasoline and diesel: www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7261027 To drive all 285 million cars in the us on electricity would require 1,400 TWh or more than 30% of power generation. To drive trucks and buses as well on electricity would require some 2,000 TWh. I reckon battery production would require about as much electricity as the refineries use at present, or perhaps a little more.

Yes, I also hope that it will turn out that climate change is not due to human influence. Throughout history the climate has changed dramatically and changes have not always correlated with variations in CO2. The change definitely has political implications and the climate is used in order to drive political change. More people need to engage in the analysis and debate of the resource needs for the change and other aspects related to the economic and social consequences. Over the coming decade people will realise that the very ambitious change programs that have been decided in the EU, UK, and California, will have very adverse effects on the economy and on the quality of life for many people.

In the UK electricity demand has dropped by enough since its peak (due to LED light bulbs etc) that we already have enough spare capacity for all cars to be electric today. Trucks etc would need additional capacity, but cars could be done right now.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Sounds like something I wrote, yes agree 100%.

Calculating the different aspects of the change is very complex and we need to understand how much electricity that is produced in each country and the grid capacity that is installed at present. No country has enough generation capacity available to expand in the way required to charge all vehicles had they been electric. Power plants are already utilized to their maximum capacity. Elon Musk doesn't need to say that doubling power generation of the US is a problem. Anyone who would seriously look into this will understand that it cannot be done without investing in a large amount of new generation capacity. I have spent the past 18 years investigating the amount of resources that will be needed to change to electric vehicles and I have made hundreds of interviews and participated in workshops and seminars with professors from a number of countries, utilities, automorive companies, and other organizations that will have key roles in the change, so I know what I am talking about. I have written 7 books about the investments needed, books that are available internationally. The conclusions can of course be discussed, but the discussion needs to start with an understanding of the current power systems and how they need to be expanded.

Savings through the use of LED light bulbs are minimal compared to the need for electricity for cars and trucks. To drive all cars in the UK on electricity wold require 100 TWh and the current generation amounts to 325 TWh per year. Each car requires an average of 3000 kWh and there are 32 million cars. This amount of electricity cannot be supplied without very large investments in new generation capacity. One new nuclear reactor on average generates 11 TWh and it takes more than 10 years to build one. 30,000 wind turbines are needed to generate 100 TWh. To drive all UK trucks and buses on electricity would require some 70 TWh. It is true that trucks represent a tougher challenge than cars, but cars offer an extreme challeng in themselves.

@@matslarsson1115 yeah you don't understand generation. If we go above capacity the grid falls over, its always under capacity. Google National Grid EV myths, it will explain in terms you might understand. EVs charging mostly happens at night when the capacity isn't being, that doesn't include capacity feed up from not distributing and refining oil, or the increasing capacity from adding renewables.

Thank you for the extensive comment! Very insightful! I have not studied the Japanese economy or the Japanese auto industry's importance for Japan, which is why I don't comment on it. It has been quite an effort in itself to understand the implications this change will have for the EU, the UK, and the US. I discuss the change from these perspectives in my new book "The Severe Economic and Social Consequences of the Rapid Change to Electric Vehicles." More people need to get their heads around these changes. I'm really happy you agree. Please keep in touch!

Thank you!

The problem is that politicians have started to make decisions to ban the sales of fossil fuel cars from 2035 and the EU has even legislated about this. This leaves a very short time frame for the implementation of new technologies and solutions. If fossil fuels is a solution it is a truly bad idea to ban the sales of fossil fuel cars from 2035 and make car companies fire all their personnel who work with development and manufacturing of such vehicles. The large-scale use of synthetic petrol or diesel is not so good, because the production of synthetic fuels requires huge amounts of electricity. To drive a mile on synthetic fuels requires 4* the amount of electricity needed to drive a mile using a battery electric car. Elon Musk says to 100% electrify US transport systems (cars, trucks, buses) power generation needs to double. This is additional 4,000 TWh or the power generated by 360 nuclear reactors. To drive all vehicles on synthetic fuels would require 16,000 TWh, the power generated by 1440 nuclear reactors.

Yes, it will be a real challenge and the change will be much more complicated than most people and politicians realise.

Yes, far into the change process this is likely to happen. It seems as if the UK govt only has 2035 as a goal that can be changed when it turns out it cannot be reached. The EU have legislated about the ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2035. I don't fully understand the status in California. Air regulators have made the decision, but how binding is that? To change the time in the EU the law needs to be repealed or changed, which is likely to be a more cumbersome process than in the UK. There is not sufficient power available to run but a fraction of car fleets on electricity in most countries. In the UK 100 TWh will be needed for all cars on an annual basis, out of the 325 TWh that are generated in a year.

Thank you, yes it is a big deal! A strong signal that electric cars are at an early stage in their development and that vehicle technologies and systems need to be much further developed to become competitive against fossil fuel cars. It remains to be seen how the information will affect demand for Teslas. I will comment on this much further in coming videos. Subscribe to get the information.

Yes,, in a sense you're right, but it is not quite that easy.

It is important to discuss the different aspects of the change to electric vehicles. I bring up some of the aspects you touch upon in your comment in my other videos and the ones to come.

That will happen well before 2035. No one alive today will live to see the day when there is no mining of oil, gas or coal.

Yes, thank you! I recorded 8 videos standing, but have now started to record them sitting down.

Thank you for your question! Electricity is the only renewable energy that can be produced in big enough quantities to make it possible to run all vehicles on them. Biofuels can be cellulose (tree) based or grain based. With cellulose based biofuels the forests would run out in a few years. With grain based 4 times the agricultural land on the planet would be needed and no land would be available to grow food. There is nuclear fusion energy that is much hyped. This development is, however, at a very early stage and it usually takes decades for new technologies to mature enough to become competitive. It can go faster if governments invest enough money into the different research facilities.

Thank you for watching!

Thank you!

Thank you for your comment! I'm definitely interested in knowing more about this. It would be a very valuable development, but in my experience even important innovations are difficult to get on the market, because incumbents tend not to want to diversify, even it it woulld make sense long term. In this case it could dramatically increase the potential of wind. I come from a business background and am not an engineer. It would be interesting to have a chat in the new year, say after the 8th.