Some Issues with Electric Vehicles, 95 Issues in Total, in Fact!

Guest Post from John McLean PhD.

Safety:

1. Fires in EVs are particularly dangerous because they burn at very high temperatures, usually emit toxic gases and are difficult to extinguish. EV drivers and passengers have been killed in such fires. [Sources: multiple media reports and video recordings of incidents]

2. Most instrumentation in EVs is via large touch-screen systems that are not in the driver’s eye line (i.e. they must look sideways). Many are also touchscreens, which means that certain information must be read and then a hand taken off the steering wheel to select some option. These are a serious distraction for drivers. [Source: Advertising for certain EVs]

3. Driver stress in EVs is far higher than ICE cars. Will they reach their target recharging station? Will it be operating when they arrive? Maybe they’ll even put themselves in discomfort by turning off the air-conditioning to try to get to the recharge point, but that might threaten their health on very cold or very hot days. [Source: Logical consequence of other points mentioned below.]

4. Public recharging stations are often not manned and even a fast charge typically takes around 40 minutes. This situation can put personal safety at risk, especially if recharging late at night. [Source: personal experience provides anecdotal evidence]

5. EV owners can have little confidence that their vehicle will be available to respond to an emergency at any time of day even over a relatively short distance. [Source: logical consequence of battery drainage and patterns of recharging.]

6. Most EVs can accelerate much faster than ICE cars. This is a threat to the safety of drivers and the public. [Source: data on EV performance]

7. The greater acceleration and greater mass mean greater tyre wear. EVs don’t emit CO2 but they cause much greater emission of rubber particulates, which are dangerous to human health. [Source: anecdotal evidence of tyre degradation]

8. The greater mass of EVs compared to ICE vehicles means that in a collision between the two types of vehicles, the ICE vehicle is going to suffer more damage, which means an increased safety risk for ICE drivers. [Source: Logical consequence based on physics]

9. The cars are very quiet, which poses a problem for the blind or visually impaired who rely on vehicle noise, or more correctly its absence, to indicate when it’s safe to cross a road. [Source: Logical consequence of cars being very quiet.]

10. Tests in the USA have shown that conventional guard rails along road sides will not stop an EV because these cars have greater mass than ICE cars and therefore greater momentum. EVs with batteries position very low tend to spear under the guard rail while EVs with higher batteries just push through the rail.

Financial issues for Owners

1. They are more expensive to purchase than vehicles with an internal combustion engine (ICE). (This has been a much-cited major obstacle to EV purchase.)

2. The cost of replacing an EVs batteries is very high with figures quoted of more than USD $50,000 in some instances. The replacement cost of a battery is potentially higher than a used EV is worth. [Source: Anecdotal evidence of people put a position of requiring a replacement battery.]

3. If owners wish to recharge their EV’s batteries at a faster rate than normal domestic electricity supplies will allow, they will need to purchase appropriate equipment and potentially have their domestic supply system upgraded (e.g. made capable of greater load), including potential new cabling. Note that EV manufacturers might not even supply a cable that suits standard domestic electricity supply. [Source: government and EV advisory websites]

4. The greater weight of the vehicle and rapid acceleration mean greater tyre wear. Some EV owners report getting only about 20% of the travel distance from tyres on an EV compared to on an ICE vehicle. The shorter distance is alleviated somewhat by having tougher tyres, but these have a higher price. [Source: Anecdotal evidence from the UK. It appears that the major tyre outlets in Australia don’t offer special tyres for EVs.]

5. Road tax is a great unknown but the logical argument is that because the cars are heavier and do greater damage to roads, the effective tax per 100km (or 100 miles) should be greater than for vehicles with internal combustion engines.

6. EVs are difficult to repair because they require that mechanics have specific skills. Those skills, and the need for space around EVs in case they burst into flame (that space potentially being “lost opportunity” for the mechanic who can’t have cars ort equipment there) means that repair costs are high. [Sources: Multiple websites]

7. The insurance premiums for EVs are higher than ICE vehicles for multiple reasons. One is that even after a minor collision the insurance company cannot be confident that the batteries are not damaged and that the car won’t burst into flames even a few weeks later. If the state of the EV is uncertain then it could easily be declared a write-off rather than have an increased risk of a greater financial burden on the insurance company (e.g. fire, significant malfunction etc.) On top of that, as mentioned above the cost of repair work on EVs is substantial. [Source: Multiple reports from the UK.]

8. EVs depreciate much faster than typical ICE vehicles, largely because of that battery degradation and the inability to accurately diagnose the state of the battery, but also potentially because of advancements in more recent models (e.g. extended range). [Source: Anecdotal evidence]

9. Will parts be available for future repairs? With hundreds of EV manufacturers in China going bankrupt and other companies existing the market or reducing the range of EV models (e.g. GM, Ford, Volvo), the availability of parts in even a few years’ time could present serious problems.

Fires:

1. While fires appear to be less common with EVs than with ICE vehicles the EV fires are usually triggered by the batteries, which are difficult for fire-services to access, burn at higher temperatures than with ICE vehicles, emit toxic fumes and pollutants and, because they create their own oxygen, are far more difficult to extinguish. Fires are even known to have continued while the battery is under water. [Source: Media reports of such fires]

2. The risk of collateral damage to nearby vehicles, to houses and other property is substantial. Note that people have been killed by such fires and that the heat generated by burning batteries can severely damage even concrete structures. [Source: media reports and video clips of such instances].

3. In some countries the recommended practice is to let the EV burn rather than spend sustained effort and resources on fighting the fire. (This of course usually makes the EV an insurance write-off and adds to insurance premiums.) [Source: documented approaches from various countries]

4. The risk of fire increases if the battery is damaged even slightly, or if water enters the electrical system and causes shorting. The latter is common in storm surges along the coast. [Sources: European ferry operators banning EVs with damaged batteries and media reports of the hurricane in Florida in 2023.]

5. Some EV manufacturers recommend re-charging only be done in the open air. They don’t explicit say it but this is to minimise the risk of other property catching fire and for the venting of any toxic smoke. [Source: Manufacturers’ recommendations]

6. Damaged EVs are difficult to transport because they might catch fire. They cannot be towed because if the back wheels rotate they will generate electricity, which could restart a fire. [Source; Advice from motoring organisations]

7. Damaged EVs are difficult to store after an accident because they need “quarantine space” in case they burst into flame. Given that the space cannot be used for anything else while an EV is present, it’s just wasted space regards the profitability of business storing them, so demands for compensation are to be expected. [Source: reports of fires in repair workshops and recommended practices for towing companies.]

Issues related to Weight/Mass:

1. To put this in perspective, a popular small car, the Hyundai Kona has a tare mass of 1427 kg in its 2024 petrol version and 1690 kg in the comparable electric version, which is an increase of almost one-fifth. The 2024 Audi Q5 SUV has a tare mass of 2045 kg whereas the Audi Q8 electric SUV has a tare mass of 2745 kg, which is 34% heavier. (Comparisons are often difficult because EVs and ICE versions of cars often differ.)

2. Bridges, multi-storey carparks and any other infrastructure designed to carry the weight of ICE vehicles might be inadequate to carry to the weight of a large number of EVs. There are potential costs here for infrastructure owners, which will often mean governments, or owners might demand payments from governments on the basis that the engineering designs could not have anticipated government policies created later. [Sources: reports of collapsed multi-storey carparks]

3. Road surfaces will degrade faster under the greater weight of EVs, which will probably mean more road maintenance is required or that other vehicles might be damaged. Road operators, whether private or government entities, will incur greater costs and ultimately these will be passed on to consumers or taxpayers. [Source: Logic based on increased weight of EVs]

4. The greater weight might also be a problem for car-carrying ferries both structurally and as a total load on the vessel. This shouldn’t be an issue for the large ferries that regularly carry loaded trucks, it’s more a small ferry problem, but where’s the dividing line? These ferries could be forced to carry fewer vehicles or need to be replaced with more capable ferries, which will incur direct costs. The operators of such ferries could reasonably demand compensation from their government. [Source: Logical consequences of increased mass]

5. As noted earlier, the greater weight of EVs also means that either tyres on an EV need replacing more often than on a corresponding ICE vehicle or special tyres, at a premium price will be required. (See also ‘Financial Issues for owners’)

6. The greater weight of an EV puts a greater load on the suspension, probably leading to more rapid degradation of those components and therefore needing more frequent replacement. (We can expect that improvements will come with experience but how much?) [Source: Logical consequences of greater mass.]

7. The increased weight of any EVs used on farms will probably mean that they more easily chew up soft ground and are probably more susceptible to getting bogged.

Issues with Driving EVs:

1. The driving range of EVs seems to be based on the EU’s Worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure uses an average speed of 46 kph, which is about 29mph, in a temperature of 23 °C. Include flat road rather than with hills or mountains and this seems to be near-perfect conditions to obtain maximum range from EVs. Of course the real world is somewhat different and the driving range under more normal conditions is said to often be 25% to 30% less than EV manufacturers claim. [Source: Anecdotal evidence.]

2. Being forced to take a break to recharge the EV battery after just a few hours driving is a major inconvenience when travelling long distances. These pauses to recharge, assuming one can find a working recharger, can add considerable time to the journey. [Source: Anecdotal evidence]

3. The range of an EV is impacted by the load put on the electrical system by the EVs accessories. Unlike with internal combustion vehicles which produce electricity as a by-product, the use of electrical appliance such as lights, air conditioning, seat heaters etc. is a further drain on the battery. [Source: logic and anecdotal evidence.]

4. The range of an EV is impacted by the total mass of the vehicle, the mass of anything being towed, the geography of the road (e.g. climbing hills) and the direction of the wind. Given that these factors are highly variable, a driver can’t be confident that a battery charge to the same level will always get him or her a certain distance. [Source: Anecdotal evidence]

5. Many EV manufacturers recommend not letting the battery get below 20%, but also not charge it to over 80%. They argue that to exceed these limits decreases the lifetime of the battery. After trimming 20% from each end of the battery capacity, owners are left with only 60% of the range they would have with a fully recharged battery that’s drained to near empty. [Source: Manufacturers’ recommendations]

6. To date it appears that EVs are far less reliable than ICE vehicles, having about 80% more problems. Some cars have problems with the drive train (i.e. battery to motor) but more common are software problems, including some that have killed people. (It should be possible to correct these but how long will it take?) [Source: US data]

7. Driving through water, especially salt-water, and even the slush from salt put on roads to counter snow and ice, could cause critical damage to the electrics of the vehicle and trigger fires if not immediately then within about two weeks. [Source: US data about EVs following the hurricane in Florida in 2023.]

8. If one requires roadside assistance because the battery is flat it might be via a generator (a slow recharge at 230 volts) or via another battery which itself will need to be recharged before it can be used again. As well as causing a delay, the time taken for this work might means threats to the safety of another EV driver who is forced to wait an excessive amount of time. [Source: Logic around the time taken to provide such assistance.]

9. A driver cannot carry spare charged batteries, such as they can with jerry-cans of fuel. This would put an end to driving adventures far from any recharge facilities. Taking jerry cans of fuel in order to run a generator to recharge batteries is just impractical if one must stop every few hours for a recharge. [Source: Logic and experience of “off-road” drivers.]

10. Driver stress over range, battery degradation with fast charge, tyre degradation, availability of working rechargers, recharge time etc. These would make driving an unpleasant experience. [Source: Logical argument derived from other points in this list.]

Issues with Domestic Recharging or Recharging at Work:

1. A recharge under domestic standard electricity supply is slow. Even under the commonly used 230-volt system many EVs will take more than 24 hours to fully recharge. (This is assumed to mean 0% to 100%.) [Source: documentation from motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers, as well as from EV advisory web sites]

2. Charging faster at home will incur set-up costs (see ‘Financial issues for owners’ for more details). A change of house might incur a repeat of these costs if the new house is not already configured for faster charging.

3. Recharging has an associated increased risk of fires. This has implications for recharging in any enclosed space, so much so that EV manufacturers recommend charging in the open air, which of course is a major problem for many people.

4. Charging at home is not always practical because not everyone has the facilities to charge a car, especially people in apartments, or those forced to park on the street. Provision of charging facilities for multi-storey apartment blocks can be very expensive and is even more challenging if the manufacturers’ recommendation of parking in the open air is adhered to. There are also issues of public safety and even potential theft of charging equipment if charging in a public place. [Source: anecdotal evidence by electrical engineer asked to quote for the supply of chargers in multi-storey apartment and anecdotal evidence of on-street charging.]

5. It has been recommended by various authorities and web sites that EV owners “top up” their EV battery each evening, but this will add load to the electricity network at a time when there’s no solar power available. The Dutch province of Utrecht recently requested that EV owners not recharge their batteries during times of peak electricity demand. [Source: recommended practices of various government and advisory websites, plus media sources.]

6. It is likely that having many EVs in the same street recharging simultaneously would overload the electricity cabling within the street simply because the cable size was not based on this level of loading. [Source: Electrical engineer of more than 40 years’ experience.]

7. It is entirely unrealistic to expect (or demand) that employers provide a substantial number of recharge facilities in staff carparks so that EVs can be recharged via solar power during the day. The set-up costs and on-going cost of electricity rule this out. [Source: Common sense.]

Issues with Commercial Recharge Stations:

1. Drivers cannot be certain that a recharging station will be operational when one arrives. Finding an alternative recharging station when one has a low battery could be a serious challenge. [Source: Anecdotal evidence from the USA and UK where rechargers are supposed to be operational 99% of the time but don’t appear to be.]

2. To quickly recharge a car (about 40 minutes from near flat to full) at commercial recharge stations requires electricity input of at least 400 volts and more than 150 kW, which means specialised equipment. [Source: Multiple reports plus details about given EVs.]

3. If a fast recharge takes about 40 minutes, then when anyone queues behind a car being recharged, then on average the whole process will take about an hour because wait time will be 20 minutes (i.e. 40/2) plus the recharge time. Queue behind another queued vehicle and it’s 1.5 times queuing time to connect for recharge, then whatever time the recharge takes. [Source: Logic based on the given recharge time.]

4. The slowness of a recharge process means that to get the same throughput as a service station (petrol & diesel) a recharge station will need approximate 8 times the number of charge points as petrol pumps because refuelling petrol takes about 5 minutes, not 40. Petrol stations typically have about 10 points, so this suggests 80 recharge points. Having even 20 recharge points all active at the same time would put a huge load on the cabling for the electricity grid. (see also under “Implications for Electricity Infrastructure”). [Source: Electrical engineer.]

5. A DC fast charger, just one, draws about 250 kilowatts, which is the equivalent of about 100 houses. On this basis, ten chargers would draw ten times that amount (2.5 MW), which is a small suburb’s worth of power, and of course the recharging station would need to be supplied with that amount of electricity. The alternative is to supply the recharge station with less power, say 1 MW and distribute this electricity across however many EVs were recharging. While one EV might draw 250 kilowatts, ten EVs simultaneously recharging and sharing 1 MW would be drawing only 100 kilowatts each, slowing their recharging (and forcing queuing cars to wait even longer.) [Source: Advice from electrical engineer and anecdotal evidence.]

6. The rate of charging of EV batteries slows as they near 100%. It’s said that the last 20% (i.e., from 80% to 100%) takes as long as reaching that 80% point from 0% (or near it). If a full recharge takes 40 minutes but the last 20 minutes is just for charging past 80%, then refusing to charge past 80% will mean less queuing, greater throughput and longer battery life, but less range. It’s another decision that puts stress on drivers. [Source: Advisory notes about EV usage.]

7. The time required to recharge a battery depends on the temperature. Recharging will be slower in very cold weather. [Source: Media reports of EV recharging in Chicago during cold weather in early 2024.]

8. Recharging stations frequently don’t offer any shelter from adverse weather conditions. This is a major inconvenience to users and potential danger when rain is falling. [Source: Evidence from pictures of recharging stations.]

9. Already there are examples of commercial recharging station prices exceeding petrol prices when converted to costs per given distance (e.g. per 10 kilometres). This situation will vary according to electricity costs relative to petrol costs but the rapid increase in the cost of electricity (and presumably a fall in petrol prices if demand drops) is not encouraging. [Source: Anecdotal evidence from the UK]

10. The financial viability of operating one or more recharge stations is very difficult to determine.

11. Unlike petrol stations offering different brands, the primary product offered at all recharge stations is identical

12. Potential customers can obtain the same product at home, perhaps more slowly but at lower cost

13. The customer base will largely be people seeking faster recharges, which manufacturers say reduce battery life, or those away from home, but these numbers are difficult, even impossible, to predict.

14. The expense is substantial (see above) and the provision of any sub-optimal service or excessive cost is likely to mean a loss of customers.

15. The commercial risks are significant, which probably means far fewer EV recharge stations than petrol stations. Government involvement is likely if the greater use EVs is a government policy but this is inconsistent with governments backing away from operating companies and businesses. [Source: Logical extension of earlier points plus evidence from the UK]

16. To improve the prospects of being commercially viable, recharge stations are unlikely to be manned, which means an increased safety risk (See also under ‘Safety’) and very probably a slower response to any faults with the operation of these stations. [Source: Media reports and evidence from users of recharge stations]

17. Recharge stations need not only electricity supply but also communication services by which payment for the recharge can be processed. Payment is often handled by mobile phone app, but that means the purchaser needs a working mobile phone and have downloaded, installed and know how to use the app. It also means their carrier of choice must provide a service in that location. (But if the service is not provided, presumably because the service regarded it as not financially viable, should governments provide such services?) [Source: British media and anecdotal reports]

18. The provision of the services mentioned in the previous point is relatively simple in densely populated urban areas but less so in remote areas or small towns and villages. Recharge stations in remote areas don’t only have a problem with the provision of necessary services but also with safety (unmanned stations) and slow repair of faults. (This does not bode well for motorists who rely on such charging stations if there are no alternative stations within reasonable distance.) The financial viability of such recharge stations is open to question and again governments might have fund them. [Source: Logic and experience with travel in remote areas]

19. The common practice with EV recharging stations seems to be that the vehicle is parked nose-in to the kerb. This is impractical if the EV is towing a trailer or caravan. [Source: Observation of EV recharging stations.]

Implications for Electricity Infrastructure:

1. The widespread use of EVs will place huge demands on the electricity network, which means more electricity must be generated. As noted previously, the Dutch province of Utrecht has already been asking EV users to not recharge at times of peak electricity demand. This of course conflicts with the recommended practice of “topping up” EV batteries each evening, which is also a time peak electricity demand for domestic use, but recharging using solar power during the day is not a practical option for wide scale use. Funding the increase in generation will almost certainly be passed on to consumers or, if funded by the government, taxpayers. [Source: Electrical engineer]

2. To cope with large numbers of simultaneous EV recharges the entire electricity network will very likely need an upgrade to most cabling, transformers and substations. This will be a top-to-toe upgrade from high-capacity, high-voltage cables down to cabling to individual buildings or consumers. The provision of above-normal electricity supply to EV recharge stations will likely be a special case. Again the cost of this huge amount of work will be passed to consumers or, if the government is responsible for the network, to taxpayers. [Source: Electrical engineer]

3. The task is enormous and whether the resources – cables and other equipment plus the skilled workers - are all available is another. If much of the world is intent on doing similar work then the demand for all of these resources will be high and therefore they’ll be difficult to obtain and be expensive. Training people to undertake such work will be challenged by them seeing little future prospect for their skills after the task is completed. [Source: Expert commentary]

Employee and Workforce Issues:

1. People who currently work as automotive mechanics, motorcycle mechanics and other petrol or diesel motor mechanics will lose their jobs. (In Australia, with a population of about 27 million people, that’s over 90,000 workers.) [Source: Statistical data]

2. Also displaced will be the very large people who staff petrol or diesel service stations or other supply points because unlike these places, EV recharging stations are typically unmanned. [Source: personal contact with such people when paying for petrol]

3. EV mechanics will need special skills, not least to handle high-voltage batteries. These skills are likely to be acquired through training by EV manufacturers and are therefore specific to that type of EV. Recent UK data suggests that only about 10% of mechanics have been retrained. But will there be enough of them if EVs are made mandatory? While it’s true that many EV problems are related to the software that controls the vehicle there will still be roles in maintaining and repairing EVs. [Source: UK data and anecdotal evidence of slowness of EV repairs]

4. Employees in businesses that supply the automotive industry with components and equipment are also likely to lose their jobs. This also applies to workers in “aftermarket” roles such as staff in automotive supply shops because the opportunities for “home mechanics” will decrease sharply. [Source: logical thinking]

Issues with EV Manufacturing:

1. Much of the cobalt for EV batteries is mined in The Congo where children as young as ten gather the ore-bearing stone. Government encouragement of the use of EVs, or mandating their use, therefore conflicts with declarations of many governments that they will not accept products made by child labour. [Source: multiple reports and photographic evidence]

2. It has been reported that EV batteries are manufactured in China using slave labour, particularly from the Uighur population. Again there is a conflict with government declarations about the acceptability of products manufactured using slave labour. [Source: multiple reports]

Environmental Issues:

1. Supplying the necessary metals for batteries, motors and cabling of EVs will require a huge increase in mining. Some reports say that 250 tonne of earth and ore must be moved in order obtain the materials for just one EV. This will inevitable mean significant environmental destruction. [Source: multiple reports]

2. The processing of the necessary minerals for EVs is more energy-hungry than for ICE vehicles. The supply of that energy, especially for the increased demand, has its own set of issues including availability, emissions and reliability of supply. [Source: multiple reports]

3. The manufacture of EV batteries is said to cause significant water pollution in western China. This warrants investigation because the countries that encourage EV use could well be partly responsible for pollution in other countries. [Source: unofficial reports from China]

4. Studies have shown that CO2 emissions from the mining of the elements necessary for an EV, and then the vehicle’s construction, are substantially higher than those from the construction of ICE vehicles. [Source: Multiple reports]

5. If we accept that the process of manufacturing a lithium ion battery requires 175 kWh of energy, which means about 100kg of CO2, then even a 50 kWh battery – a composite of smaller batteries - in an EV requires 8.75 MWh to manufacture, which means 5 tonnes of CO2. Multiply these by the millions of EVs required globally and factor in their apparently short life-time (“write-offs” from accidents, battery replacement costs making people wary of used EVs and any reduction in CO2 emissions over ICE vehicles, which have a longer lifetime and a strong used car market, is probably negligible or non-existent. [Source: Multiple reports that have increased in number]

6. Recharging EVs using electricity from power stations driven by fossil fuel does little to reduce CO2 emissions. The irony is that the increase in EVs will cause an increased demand for electricity, which means those fossil-fuelled power stations are likely to continue to operate. Electricity generation by renewables is weather-dependent and therefore unreliable. The alternatives to fossil fuel power are massive batteries to store electricity, which will need to be replaced every 15 to 20 years, or nuclear power, both of which are significantly more expensive than fossil fuel. [Source: Logic and energy media reports]

7. Disposal of EVs is poorly advanced, especially when it comes to EV batteries. They seem destined for landfill because there’s no method by which they can be recycled, and yet they’ll leak toxic chemicals. This situation is made worse by the short lifetime, and hence frequent replacement, of EVs. [Source: multiple reports]

Defence Implications:

1. The extensive use of EVs will play into Chinese hands because they country is a major manufacturer of EVs. Purchasing EVs from China will support that country’s economy, which means it will have more money to spend on its military forces.

2. There is a risk that EVs made in countries opposed to the West will forward data to interests in those countries and perhaps even enable remote control of those EVs. A simple mass stoppage of EVs on the roads would cause a huge problem.

3. Some countries have stated aims to use EVs in their defence forces. This will have all the issues mentioned earlier of weight, safety, recharge time but with a special emphasis on facilities to recharge those EVs. The efficiency and capabilities of defence forces will be hugely reduced. [Source: media reports of such proposals]

Issues with Electric Vehicles Other Than Cars:

1. EV buses need large batteries, which has implications especially regarding recharge time and total weight. Slow recharge times suggest that more EV than diesel driven buses will be required because EVs will be off the road being recharged. The cost of recharge equipment and additional busses will be passed on to passengers, as well as consequential problems like space to accommodate those additional busses.. [Source: multiple reports]

2. EV buses are notorious for batteries failing under severe weather conditions when heating or air-conditioning is required but (obviously) put additional load on batteries. [Source: reports from Europe]

3. There have been multiple reports of EV busses catching fire. [Source: video clips of such fires]

4. EV farm vehicles are simply impractical for work on farms. They are too heavy and the recharge times will cause delays in operations. If a farm has multiple EVs then it will also need the power supply to recharge those vehicles, although frequent fast recharge decreases battery life. On top of all that is that the life-time of such EVs is likely to be less than diesel powered farm equipment, some of which is often used for decades. [Source: experience on farms]

5. Drivers of EV delivery trucks that travel any decent distance each day (c.f. local deliveries from places such as supermarkets) report that fewer deliveries are made each day because of the limited range. They say that they have to wait while their vehicles are recharging, and in effect are being paid to do nothing but wait. [Source: reports from the UK].

6. EV semi-trailers will require huge batteries. These will cause have weight issues (truck damage, road damage, danger in accidents, limits to load they can carry), and they will suffer recharge delays. More semitrailers will be required to transport the nation’s goods, meaning even more weight. [Source: Commonsense]

7. Various US police forces have found EVs to be prone to running out of battery during pursuits and needing to be off the road for multiple hours each day for recharging. (The LAPD for example has reassigned its EVs to purely administrative work.) [Source: US media reports]

8. EV ambulances will pose significant risk to human life. The range of EVs is limiting and the battery will be further depleted if life-saving electrical equipment on the ambulance is used. Also, when the ambulance is recharging it won’t be available to deal with patients, so the number of ambulances will need to increase if emergency calls are serviced to an acceptable standard. [Source: reports from the UK]

9. Continuity of operations is important for mining and civil engineering work but this this would be impacted by the time required to recharge EVs. The solution would be to duplicate all EVs so that work could continue while recharging but that would probably have significant cost implications and those costs be passed on to the clients or customers. [Source: Logic and commonsense]

Broader Issues:

1. The demand for petrol and diesel fuels makes the whole petroleum industry viable. Without that demand it could no longer be viable to refine crude oil to produce Avgas (for aircraft), diesel (for trains), plastics and a myriad of other products, some of which are a direct result of the refining process (e.g. kerosene) and others of which use the by-products of refining as key ingredients. [Source: multiple reports]

Issues for Governments:

1. Government funding has been shown to be likely for dealing with the increased weight of EVs, upgrading the electricity supply system perhaps as far upstream as increased generating capacity, compensation for the additional business costs of running EVs, dealing with additional road traffic if transport loads are limited due to batteries, and possible the funding of EV charging stations and associated communications infrastructure especially those in remote areas. All this while potentially suffering a decrease in road tax, which means less money coming in. This funding burden will be passed on to either taxpayers or the community as a whole, via decreases in other government services, or both. [Source: Logical thinking]

2. Governments will also need to deal with

   1. environmental issues of more mining to produce EVs and disposal of those EVs (especially their batteries) at end of life

   2. displaced workers (mechanics, service station staff, automotive component manufacturers, after-sales shop staff etc.)

   3. compensation claims from anyone who will incur additional costs, including replacement costs, due to a change in government policy and legislation

   4. the increased cost to purchase and insure EVs hurting the public. They will demand, financial support or higher pay, or will have less to spend on other goods and services, all of which will hurt the economy

   5. the financial consequences for trucking and delivery vehicles flowing through the supply chain, especially for food, which will mean increased prices and again have consequences for the economy.

   6. in countries with nationalised health systems, EV driver stress will be an issue for the system to deal with.

   7. increased requirements of fire-fighting services so that they can deal appropriately with EV fires

   8. If ambulances and other emergency vehicles are EVs then higher costs per unit and the greater number of units will be required (and housed!) to compensate for the time taken recharging.

3. Governments will also need to explain their acceptance of products manufactured directly or ultimately by child and slave labour when commitments have been made to reject such products.

#EVs #EnergyDemand #Energy #ElectricalVehicles #EVproblems #EVissues