He said: “We are absolutely committed to our manifesto commitment of a 2030 phase-out for new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines. We are not changing our level of ambition for the transition, and there will be no repeat of the uncertainty generated by the previous administration.
“But at the same time, the Transport Secretary and I have heard you loud and clear on the need for support to make this transition a success, and that’s why we will be consulting with you on changes to the same mandate and inviting your views on options for a better way forward.”
Banning an entire technology will always have huge and bad effects.
Hey, it might even be worth it, who knows.But it really is true that banning an entire technology is going to have huge effects. And if they’re not going to change the policy then those effects will happen.
My best guess – hey, it’s a guess – is that without significant tariff barriers it’ll be cheapo Chinese EVs that irrupt into the market. One of more of the European brands might not manage the transition.
Not just tariffs but outright bans will be the only way to halt Chinese producers from taking over.
Battery production in Europe is littered with failed ventures who could not compete with China.
The other thing to remember is that European ( especially German ) manufacturers are hampered by huge energy costs imposed by their governments.
Even with cheaper EVs the range, infrastructure issues and lack of off-street charging for many remain.
I still don’t understand why we are being so much more aggressive on this than most other countries. Is it just Millibrain’s ego? The odd thing too is that his Climate Change Act nearly two decades ago was basically nodded through by Parliament. I don’t remember much opposition at the time. None of them (except for Peter Lilley and one or two others) questioned it.
Seeing the job losses being announced by Stellantis here in the UK and the bloodbath that is occurring in Germany, particularly VW, Audi, Bosch, Ford (and Tesla), I reckon the wheels will come of this particular wagon before 2030.
Politicians promising to phase out purely ICE cars is going to collide with the reality that thousands of people are going to lose their jobs, over this and the other bits of nut zero madness they’ve instigated.
Which two western countries have ‘invested’ the most in wind and solar?
Which two countries have the highest electricity costs in the world?
Co-incidence?
TG
Exactly the number of opponents to the Act in the House were very small. It showed that most MPs were ( are ) unable to think for themselves.
Banning technologies :
This was a hobby horse of mine for a few years. Philips Siemens and GE were having their market in light bulbs undercut by Chinese dumping ( remember when it was possible to buy half a dozen 60w bulbs for 99p ?)
So they formed a cartel and paid Green lobbyists to lobby the EU Australia ( and I think Canada ) to ban incandescent bulbs and force us to use those toxic fluorescent ones. The EU passed a directive enforcing the ban. So craven and stupid was the responsible minister Hilary Benn that the pathetic moron* tried to pretend that the govt had thought this one up itself.
Because also most journalists are likewise useless cowards incapable of thought, this whole farrago was only exposed by an Austrian news magazine.
* Sorry but Benn is quite near the top of my Kill List.
Just wonderful. The yearly percentage of EV’s will be allowed to fall behind the target, on the grounds of pragmatic reality, but the 2030 date for 100% adoption is to remain set in stone.
Sooner rather than later, the government will have to back away from the fines on vehicle manufacturers (VMs) for not meeting the escalating targets for electric vehicle (EV) sales. Either that or the VMs will leave the UK market rather than go bust, Stellantis having made the first move today. The Chinese will steamroller the market, and the UK will have no car industry.
EVs are just so useless in so many ways starting with very high prices compared to internal combustion-engined cars (ICE cars). And depreciation is epic.
Next the range problem is unfixable given that battery chemistry doesn’t seem to be advancing, and probably can’t advance because the periodic table is set in concrete.
On charging at home, more than 50% of drivers don’t have driveway or garage parking. The public charging network is clearly inadequate and expensive. So charging is a massive problem even if we had sufficient electricity to do it.
Then there is the weight of EVs, and the sheer size. Parking structures become a problem. In fact, parking becomes a problem. And then there is the fire problem.
I could go on, but you probably get the picture. As to whether any government can back away from the fines, it’s hard to say. If a government did, it will find itself in court, and with the Swiss oldies precedent at the ECHR, an awful lot of laws will have to be repealed to change direction.
The one safe bet you can always make is that when governments try to pick winners, it’ll be a loser. I wonder if Paddy Power will take my bet?
“new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines”
Weasel words…. hybrids will be OK then?
If so, get a Toyota (or Lexus if you like your T in a posh frock) on order now. Best self-charging hybrid out there by a long way.
” Climate Change Act nearly two decades ago was basically nodded through by Parliament. ”
IIRC, it was in October, and outside parliament snow was falling in an amount rarely seen in central London and never before in that month. . As I also recall only about 5 MPs voted against the bill.
In an aside, did you ever see so many stupid government acts in so short a time? It seems the British public is being ruled by a cabal of its enemies.
I think a major issue in all of this discussion is that many people persist in seeing all of this through the traditional lens, of an essentially well-meaning if ideological and incompetent government doing what it is doing for reasons of stated policy.
The clue ought to be that both the Tories and Labour have been pushing this; while we faff around the rhetorical margins worrying about whether we drive Chinese electric vehicles, what tariffs might be applied where, and so on, the beast grinds on.
The gloves are not yet quite off, but they are certainly being unlaced; there will be no electric cars for you, the lack of infrastructure being a major clue.
Indeed, there may well be no you.
I am somewhat more hopeful post November 5 than I was before that the oil tanker might be turned, but still it looks a mammoth task.
I suspect the point will come when electricity prices are significantly raised purely in order to “restrict supply” and provide an immediate grid collapse.
They’d prefer to do it by smart meters cutting off car chargers and other heavy duty electrical equipment, but the refusal of lots of people to get smart meters installed and the widespread failure of the 1st generation technology has placed a dampener on that one.
I can certainly see regulations being passed saying (in essence) that unless you’ve got a smart meter installed, you can’t make ANY electrical upgrades to a house for things like EV car chargers and “heat” pumps. That would restore at least some control back to the government and allow them to use the EV battery as a distributed grid component.
It’s all gonna end in tears, but Milliband’s pension will still get paid.
Remember when the government banned horses to force people to move to automotives because the streets were ankle-deep in horse shit? Oh wait, they didn’t! People *CHOSE* to give up horses that shitted everywhere.
@shiney
…but if Toyota/Lexus are still going to be able to sell hybrid cars in the future, why the rush?
@Matt
Because Toyota will be inundated with orders and the price will go through the roof. We bought a Yaris for the wife to pootle around in – took 7 months to arrive.
@shiney
Weasel words indeed. People on the whole seem to like mild hybrids and for most people they give a lot better mpg. A sane government wanting to reduce carbon emissions would see this as a good step in the the right direction and incentivize rather than aim to ban them.
TG
The odd thing too is that his Climate Change Act nearly two decades ago was basically nodded through by Parliament.
Not odd at all, given our Parliamentary system generates lobby fodder in the Chamber and in Committee stages of Bills. Most MPs have little understanding of what they are voting for or against. They obey the Whips, partly because of time pressures, partly because many are thick and/or ignorant, partly because they are persuaded that the deficiencies of a Bill can be dealt with in the Lords, but mainly because promotion to the executive is a higher priority than being a good legislator. Until there are incentives for MPs to be good legislators — with a system perhaps modelled on Select Committees? — we will get ever more duff legislation.
Even if the ban were sensible, fining at the company level instead of a redistribution approach is stark staring mad
How would a “redistribution approach” work?
“It seems the British public is being ruled by a cabal of its enemies.”
It seems? We are being ruled by a cabal of our enemies. These people are doing me harm, of course I consider them to be enemies. I loath and despise them in equal measure.
We bought a Yaris, solely for the mpg. Then Toyota came up with a brilliant idea; if you have it serviced at a main dealer the warranty is extended to 100,000 miles or 10 years. So the dealers get a steady stream of income because Toyota/Lexus are confident of their original workmanship and the dealers don’t have to charge crazy prices.
Thank God the Tories made it law that we all had to buy Toyotas or we’d never have bought a Jap car because of our far-right racism and we are too stupid to work out that a hybrid is self charging and so doesn’t have to be plugged in. Just goes to show that all the best ideas come from the State. Oh, wait…
Milliband increasingly appears to be actually mad, or so ideologically blinded that it amounts to the same thing. I’m not totally dismissing the idea of a vast conspiracy but I don’t think it’s needed when the lunatics are running the asylum.
@andyf
But they’re not sane. And as @interested said…. They’re not really interested in climate change/ reducing CO2 at all… controlling what the proles can do is what counts.
It’s about 20 years too late to stop China.
It’s not just electric cars, China can make everything cheaper than the deindustrialised West. They’re the global manufacturing superpower – the US Navy was alarmed to discover that China can build approx. 233 ships for every one the USA can.
If they didn’t want the Chinese to inherit the Earth, probably shouldn’t have sent them all our industries and then destroyed our own energy base.
Oh well!
Until there are incentives for MPs to be good legislators — with a system perhaps modelled on Select Committees?
Publish their home addresses and no private security guards.
“but Milliband’s pension will still get paid”
In the ‘High Ground’ novels, Doug Casey refers to African ‘Presidents-for-Life’ as the title contains it’s own solution. Very entertaining novels.
If ‘they’ really don’t like fossil fuels, I naturally feel that ‘they’ should switch us over to nukes rather than windmills.
The nukes could then be used to produce hydrogen and extract CO2 from the air or ocean. Simple WW2 technology can then produce all the hydrocarbon fuels we need.
Of course if I was running things, I’d simply do nothing. But I WAS a bureaucrat, you know.
TG,
“I still don’t understand why we are being so much more aggressive on this than most other countries. Is it just Millibrain’s ego? The odd thing too is that his Climate Change Act nearly two decades ago was basically nodded through by Parliament. I don’t remember much opposition at the time. None of them (except for Peter Lilley and one or two others) questioned it.”
The problem is that post-2005, when Cameron became leader (the act was 2008), we got an omniparty. Cameron didn’t just say he was heir to Blair, he was. He got the Conservatives interfering in party selection at a local level in a big way, so the party became like the wets. And Kemi just announced she supported the extra spending in the Labour budget, so is cut from the same cloth as the rest of them.
Which is why, gradually, the various Farage parties have been steadily rising. They’re now the opposition. The decline in support for Starmer since the election hasn’t shifted to the Conservatives, it’s going to Reform. It might be the case that they have a bigger share of the votes than the Conservatives at the next election the way things are going.
It’s not about the electric milk floats:
Sometime between 2015 and 2020, China overtook the US in the number of warships in its fleet, and the gap between the two navies has been fast growing. The Pentagon’s annual report to the US Congress on Chinese military and security developments estimates that the Chinese Navy had 350 warships compared to 293 warships in the US Navy battle force.
The yawning gap of 60 hulls between the two navies is expected to grow every five years until 2035 when China will have an estimated 475 naval ships compared to 305-317 US warships.
The slide published by Fox News shows that Chinese shipyards have a capacity of about 23.2 million tons compared to less than 100,000 tons in the US, making Chinese shipbuilding capacity more than 232 times greater than that of the US.
China will own global shipping and global trade routes will be protected by the People’s Liberation Army Navy by default. Instead of a US dominated world order it’ll be a Sinocentric one. This kerfuffle in the Red Sea is an amuse bouche to the West being crowbarred out of Asia entirely.
But does China have a Horatio Nelson? If Nelson was a young officer in the modern Royal Navy he’d be stuck commanding a desk and reporting on his progress in chasing Englishmen out of the navy.
“England Expects That Every Person Will Display Their Pronouns”
Is England still capable of producing Great Men of history? The USA clearly is. Did they get us to trade our heroes for ghosts?
Steve
A good example of ‘how not to do it’ is the FA’s latest policy ( in fact everything the FA does is a warning ). They are going to set quotas for the numbers of ethnic minority and women coaches getting their badges and going into training.
As with all targets it will simply become bix ticking and the Premier League will still rather hire its managers from the Lithuanian second division instead of English ones.
I think there’s actually some clever weaseling going on here. They are absolutely, 100% going to stick to the 100% elimination by 2030 goal! But note that the elimination is of cars powered solely by ICE. That one word, solely, can do quite a bit of heavy lifting. A hybrid that provides miniscule amounts of electric power presumably qualifies. Thus, can we square the circle of an absolute 100% deadline with reality.
I do wonder how much the Greens will squeal if they meet this goal by counting hybrids with minimal electric power though. But this might get them through a few more years without punting on the hard 100% deadline.
Steve,
“It’s not just electric cars, China can make everything cheaper than the deindustrialised West. They’re the global manufacturing superpower – the US Navy was alarmed to discover that China can build approx. 233 ships for every one the USA can.”
Right, but the US Navy is probably making sure that every single screw that is produced has the right green paperwork, that the ship complies to a stack of OSHA rules, that there’s accomodation and toilets for all 27 different genders, that every state gets some contracts, even though making things in Hawaii or Alaska is stupid.
People are like “China can build all this rail, why can’t we?” Well, for starters because we spent £900m on the archaeology for HS2. Which is the sort of sum that is worthwhile if you find the sort of biblical relic that can melt the faces of Nazis, but for a load of roman coins and broken pottery, that tells us more of the same about the people who lived in Northamptonshire, it really isn’t.
There’s a similar loophole for “hydrogen ready” boilers I think.
Our whole energy policy is just cold comfort for change.
Esteban – good spot. Hybrids are inherently a bad idea (they combine the disadvantages of both types of propulsion in one overly complicated package) but then so is Net Zero.
Historically, Europe was an impoverished backwater on the fringes of a much wealthier Asia. Our retro-crazed politicians are bringing the 13th century back.
Otto – the determination to shove women’s football down everyone’s throats is obnoxious. Same with the British Army:
Diversity drive to let women join front-line Army units branded a ‘failed exercise in political correctness’ after only ten started Royal Armoured Corps and infantry basic training last year
They won’t admit that it was stupid to invite women into the infantry in the first place. Chinless generals with cut glass accents and a constellation of letters after their name will confidently bluff that Diversity is the “world class” British Army’s secret weapon.
WB – but the US Navy is probably making sure that every single screw that is produced has the right green paperwork, that the ship complies to a stack of OSHA rules, that there’s accomodation and toilets for all 27 different genders, that every state gets some contracts, even though making things in Hawaii or Alaska is stupid.
That’s the story of the Zumwalt class destroyer, which at $8 Bn per ship costs significantly more per unit than a massive nuclear powered aircraft carrier, but isn’t capable of fighting in a war.
BAE designed a wonderful 155mm naval gun system whose ammunition costs $800,000 per round. At which point, wouldn’t it be cheaper to make warheads out of solid gold?
But at least the MIC got paid.
I wonder if the hybrid power systems in those cars shut themselves off properly and leave just the proper engine doing all the work if they detect a fault in the battery pack. For example, if it was no longer there (saving a fair amount of weight too!)
Re: the FA and their ‘targets’, as I have noted before, they never, ever, ever apply to white people do they?
We must be the only indigeous people on the fucking planet who the left are actively applauding or working towards, the eradication of.
The Chinese have had their time, other South East Asian countries will pick up the “cheap labour” from them. Whether they can keep their domestic affairs in order whilst also trying to project power around the world remains to be seen.
The USAsians have an opportunity here. Yes, economists will say the optimal is to trade with other countries where they can produce things cheaper than you. The displaced industries are replaced with those of higher value such as Google (most revenue coming from selling advertising), Amazon (drop shipping Chinese tat), Tesla (subsidy mining) and the Military Industrial Complex (plundering the pork barrel). But if Trump puts tariffs on everything, perhaps they can swap the FANGs for something that the majority of people can have some connection to.
“I still don’t understand why we are being so much more aggressive on this than most other countries”
Because you’ve had the BBC & the rest of the media shouting Climate MegaDoom for about 3 decades. Voters maybe divided on other issues but there’s sufficient voters bought into the narrative to tip the balance at elections.
Why more than other countries?Justified or not, BBC & other Brit media did once have a rather good reputation for being truthful. I think that’s probably because of the way journalists etc progressed in their careers. Like my old mate who started as a tea boy on a regional, then went onto the nationals & ended up owning a major photopress agency. Colour him extreme cynical about everything. Now the route’s via a journalism degree. The UK’s university system has probably been the most destructive force ever in UK history. Beat the Luftwaffa without even raising a sweat. A university grad will believe literally anything without question..
@Steve
That, dear reader, is why there are no diesel-electric locomotives and internal combustion autos don’t need a clutch and transmission.
It is only in the last two decades that electronic component technology has advanced to the point where hybrid in a car makes sense. The use case for vehicles requires high torque at zero speed. This an ideal case for DC electric motors. The internal combustion engine requires an overcomplicated system of a clutch and gears to overcome this without stalling the engine.
Only since the advent of silicon carbide transistors in the last 20 years has it been possible to switch high currents rapidly and efficiently in a small package. The improvement in battery technology at the same time has helped this along.
No-one has mentioned that China is continuing to build coal-fired power stations to generate electricity to manufacture the Electric Vehicles that it is exporting to the West whose people are ordered to buy EVs and that the increase in CO2 emissions in China easily exceeds the notional savings in the UK, EU, etc. and far exceeds the actual savings. The actual savings being far less than the notional savings since the marginal generator of electricity in the West is almost never a “renewable” power station [Dinorwig and its clones aren’t truly “renewables” – they are effectively batteries]
@rhoda klapp – November 27, 2024 at 8:45 am
IIRC, it was in October, and outside parliament snow was falling in an amount rarely seen in central London and never before in that month. . As I also recall only about 5 MPs voted against the bill.
Yes. They were also the only MPs at the time who had scientific or engineering backgrounds. Rather an odd coincidence, eh?
@MG
You understand it. In fact you could make a very good case for a hybrid system that omitted the battery altogether & saved the mass. Or just had one as a buffer between demand & supply. Then you’d have the ICE permanently running within its maximum efficiency envelope. Effectively dispensing with the transmission. What do hybrids usually average lt/100km? One might be able to halve emissions without having the trouble of creating the charging infrastructure.
“Net Zero” just seems a way of utilising all that incredibly expensive & intermittent wind & solar generation as a justification for having it.
@john77 They’re also using coal generated elec to charge the cars. So effectively their cars run on coal. I wonder if that has anything to do with China having ample coal but short on oil?
@ bis
Actually China is a major importer of coal so I should say that it has “a lot of” coal, not “ample” coal: but yes the EVs in China are actually massively more polluting than modern ICEs.
I was talking about Ed Millionaireband’s plans for the UK where the EVs are run on electricity generated by CCGTs (which are much more efficient than coal-fired power stations at over 50%, typically 60%) but modern ICEs are 70% efficient so the switch to EVs (even ignoring transmission losses between the power station and the charging point) actually increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Steve
The U.S. Navy has a qualitative edge over China, particularly with its destroyers, guided missile cruisers, and aircraft carriers. The U.S. Navy’s ships are generally larger and more advanced than China’s. The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million tons of ships in its fleet, which is nearly twice the size of China’s combined fleets…
So, no panico – yet!
Joe – The Chinese have had their time, other South East Asian countries will pick up the “cheap labour” from them. Whether they can keep their domestic affairs in order whilst also trying to project power around the world remains to be seen.
I think what will happen instead is that Asia as a whole will keep getting richer. Pacific Rim cities are gleaming metropoles, Western cities are Third World dumps. They are already demonstrably more civilised than we are. India has its own successful space programme, but my local council can’t be arsed emptying the bins.
Industries came for the cheap labour, but they’ll stay for the cheap energy, massive capital infrastructure, local manufacturing knowledge, supply chains etc. The wealth of the world is flowing to Asia. Vietnam, Cambodia and other places will go down the Chinese route to success. The Asians have collectively learned from the West, while the West has forgotten how it got rich.
Unless there’s a horrible big war or the Chinese system of government collapses, or something like that.
MG – Petrol and diesel internal combustion engines are a mature technology and it’s easy to buy a cheap car that’ll do 400-500 miles on a single tank of fuel.
What’s the benefit of adding a big, heavy, expensive battery and electric motors to a design that already works?
The use case for vehicles requires high torque at zero speed. This an ideal case for DC electric motors. The internal combustion engine requires an overcomplicated system of a clutch and gears to overcome this without stalling the engine.
EV style rocket starts are a nice to have, not a requirement. Personally I wouldn’t bother – once you add the cost and complexity of a secondary propulsion system, you have a more expensive car that’s more expensive to service. Hybrids were originally pitched as being “good for the environment” but there’s no evidence that they are.
Hybrids still need to have gears, right?
BiW – I wonder if the hybrid power systems in those cars shut themselves off properly and leave just the proper engine doing all the work if they detect a fault in the battery pack. For example, if it was no longer there (saving a fair amount of weight too!)
All the hybrids I’ve seen are significantly dearer than standard petrol models, and you get a tiny battery that’ll do maybe 30 miles. Idk if they work in the event of an electrical fault.
But nb the crazy madness of modern ICE cars shutting the engine off every time you stop at traffic lights. It can’t be good for an engine’s longevity to force you into dozens of stop/starts during a short drive in the city.
Forcing you to add cat piss (Adblue) to a diesel engine just adds insult to the injury.
Cow’s piss – urea.
Theo –
The U.S. Navy has a qualitative edge over China,
Does it? The US Navy has terrible recruitment and retention problems that have recently led to multiple ships running aground or colliding. It remains to be seen if the modern USN can fight and win a major war – please note, we are currently losing to the Houthis.
That’s like losing a fight with Larry Grayson, but insisting you can beat up Mike Tyson.
particularly with its destroyers, guided missile cruisers, and aircraft carriers. The U.S. Navy’s ships are generally larger and more advanced than China’s. The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million tons of ships in its fleet, which is nearly twice the size of China’s combined fleets…
Yarp, at the moment the US is still the Daddy navy by a significant margin. But…
The US navy has an entire world to cover. China doesn’t need to outnumber them globally, they just need to outfight them in the Western Pacific.
China’s ships are a lot more modern and they’re building the equivalent of the entire French navy every 5 years.
The shipbuilding disparity is insane – if China can launch over 230 ships for every one the US is able to build, we already know the winner of the next Pacific war. The US is now in the same unfortunate position Japan was in 1941 – facing the prospect of war against an industrial power that can knock their block off. The US MIC is not geared to win wars, it’s arranged to supply small quantities of very expensive weapons systems.
Nota benny, capital ships are just one (very complicated and expensive) manifestation of a state’s warmaking capabilities. You also need men to fight them, loads of planes, drones and ISR, and enormous quantities of munitions and missiles. China can easily outproduce the rest of the world in war essentials if they needed to. The US has similar problems to us in that they’d quickly run out of missiles in the event of a major shooting war.
Industrial capacity = war winning capability.
EV style rocket starts are a nice to have, not a requirement
It’s more the other way round. The torque is there for the worst case scenario. Getting a heavily laden car able to move from rest up a steep incline without too much drama.* So that produces blinding acceleration from a lightly laden car on the flat.** It isn’t actually desirable, since the vast majority of drivers don’t have the driving skills to safely utilise it.* It would be a simple matter to limit it out. But car manufacturers cater to buyers’ penis extension desires & don’t.
* It’s amazing how many supposedly competent drivers cannot do this successfully in a manually geared car.
**It is actually possible with most ICE cars. It’s a case of getting engine revs up into the power band & progressively letting in the clutch so the tyres don’t lose adhesion. And some fast clutchless gear changes. It’s the classic drag racing launch. It, however eats clutches & gearboxes. And there is of course * to consider.
“The U.S. Navy has a qualitative edge over China, particularly with its destroyers, guided missile cruisers, and aircraft carriers.” If the USA fights China in her coastal waters the USA will lose. You can’t sink missile bases on land.
Taiwan is in China’s coastal waters i.e. on the continental shelf within easy missile range of China’s coast. The US Navy seems to be designed to refight the Battle of Midway – a mid-ocean battle. No other country would be daft enough to dispatch a fleet to fight such a battle against it.
It follows that you can classify US naval vessels into two sorts, submarines and targets.
Ditto British, French, etc. unless perhaps you are fighting Argentina or the like. And not even then if China or Russia were to supply her with the right weapons.
The standard distinction made.
A navy
A blue water navy.
A navy can win battles, wars, in a specific area. Usually right next to the land of the state that owns that navy. China, currently, definitely yes. Azerbaijan – just as an example – no.
A blue water navy. Can project power 5,000 miles – just to give a distance – away from the home territory. This might be a good idea, might be a bad one. But it’s definitely a rare one.
US today, yes. China today, no. Russia today – no, not any more. UK today? Just about. We could – skin and teeth – in 1982.
The big, big, Q with navies is, in reality, do you want a blue water navy or not? If not then some fishing patrol vessels and lots of land based missiles. If you do….then carriers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, the lot. So, what do you want?
The answer to what you want can go either way. But having given the answer then you’ve got to grasp the meaning of it. Either a vastly, hugely, expensive navy, or something that can just about control home waters only. Your choice.
The internet (first search result) definition of a Hybrid seems to good to be true:
“Mild hybrids (MHEVs) work differently. In addition to an ICE, an electric motor is used to start the engine and brake or slow the car, recovering brake energy. This energy is stored in a battery and then used to help boost the ICE during acceleration. The electric motor in an MHEV never propels the wheels alone.
Let’s look at how HEVs and PHEVs operate.
There are two significant differences between an HEV and a PHEV. First, a PHEV’s battery can recharge when plugged into an external electricity source. An HEV uses its engine and regenerative brake system to recharge its battery while driving.
Second, a PHEV can propel the car on battery power alone for distances of up to 20-30 miles at any speed. Although an HEV can sometimes move the vehicle for short distances at low speeds, it primarily uses its electric motor to help the ICE accelerate when additional power is required.”
So to be a hybrid you don’t need a charging p connector on your auto, just regenerative breaking and a battery slightly bigger than the normal 12V affair that can take the resulting charge boost.
In your face Ed Miliband, unless I’m missing something.
I’m inclined to agree with dearieme there. A blue water navy can make something go bang a long way away. But so can a lot of other things now.
Really depends on whether you want to put boots (or tanks) on the ground a long way away, without the hospitality of the owners. So you need to protect your logistic chain.
I read somewhere of talk of reconfiguring the B2 as a fighter carrying very long range A2A drone/missiles with AI/remote guidance capability. Given that it already has the stand off capability to deliver pretty well anything, that’s pretty well a carrier strike package with a 6000 mile un-refueled range, providing they have enough of them. Would make the Chinese navy irrelevant.
I recommend some fishery patrol vessels, minesweepers, lots of land-based missiles, and submarines – nuclear-powered, nuclear missiles for the launching of. Probably some hunter-killer submarines too especially if they can also have a mine-laying capability. And if that last combo is silly then put the capabilities in two different sorts of subs.
Once we’ve established that we are prepared to give far-flung territory away à la Diego Garcia, there’s not much bloody point in aircraft carriers, is there? Sell ’em to (?) India.
BiS – The torque is there for the worst case scenario.
Speaking of, driving an EV in snow is a terrifying experience. You really want an ICE when it’s minus 6 and begging to look a lot like Christmas. (Also popping into second to creep start in snow is fun).
Dearieme – Taiwan is in China’s coastal waters i.e. on the continental shelf within easy missile range of China’s coast.
And not crap Soviet-era Scud copies either. China has more sophisticated weapons than the US or UK currently do:
The DF-ZF is thought to reach speeds between Mach 5 (3,836 mph (6,173 km/h; 1,715 m/s)) and Mach 10 (7,680 mph (12,360 km/h; 3,430 m/s)).[5] The glider could be used for nuclear weapons delivery but could also be used to perform precision-strike conventional missions (for example, next-generation anti-ship ballistic missiles), which could penetrate “the layered air defenses of a U.S. carrier strike group.”[1][5]
Any hostile foreign fleet approaching China would, like a Scotsman before a wedding, get kilt.
The US Navy seems to be designed to refight the Battle of Midway
But without the industrial base that made Midway possible:
During the war, the U.S. built almost 9,000 war vessels (not including landing vessels), which was more than three times the amount of all other powers combined. U.S. production capacity meant that it was able to continually produce and replace major vessels as the war waged on. In contrast, the Japanese did not have the ability to replace lost or damaged ships, which contributed to their eventual defeat in the Pacific.
The ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were mostly refloated and put back into the fight within months – is that still possible for the US? Also, historians will be astounded with amazement at how quickly China went from being Bill Clinton’s best buddies to an openly acknowledged threat to the United States. It was only in 1999, eh?
The US government has woken up to the fact industrial power is strategic power and are scrambling to reshore, but finding it’s a lot easier to sell your industries to China than it is to recreate them from scratch. The UK is a gormless Miliband, caught in the headlights of history.
Also I hate to be unkind, but the US could call up millions of strong limbed, blue eyed farmboys in 1941 and an officer caste of calmly efficient, (mostly) high IQ white men. I don’t know if the doughy Millennials of the current year US navy have it in them to pass for Gene Kelly in “Anchors Away!”. Usually in warfare the most handsome side wins.
Tim – A blue water navy. Can project power 5,000 miles – just to give a distance – away from the home territory. This might be a good idea, might be a bad one. But it’s definitely a rare one.
US today, yes. China today, no. Russia today – no, not any more. UK today? Just about. We could – skin and teeth – in 1982.
They’ve just launched their third big aircraft carrier. How many of the Royal Navy’s carriers currently work, by comparison?
Here’s the current Chinese fleet:
3 aircraft carriers
4 landing helicopter docks
12 amphibious transport docks
32 landing ship tanks
33 landing ship mediums
62 destroyers
58 frigates
75 corvettes
150 missile boats
26 submarine chasers
17+ gunboats
36 mine countermeasure vessels
79 submarines
19 replenishment ships
232 auxiliaries
This is not old kit either, they have considerably more new ships and subs of all types than we do. And more planes to fly off their aircraft carriers. And their own AEW planes, because they’re not going to risk billions of yuan of investment and thousands of seamen on a thing in a bag hanging off the side of a helicopter.
And here’s the Royal Navy (still one of the largest in the world by tonnage, mind):
1 ship of the line
2 aircraft carriers
10 submarines
2 amphibious transport docks
6 destroyers
9 frigates
8 offshore patrol vessels
7 mine countermeasures vessels
18 fast patrol boats
2 survey ships
1 ice patrol ship
One of these navies has genuine global striking power, and one is costumed pretenders who are aving a larf by suggesting they could sustain a war halfway across the planet.
Bongo – that’s a plan so brilliant, so simple, I can’t imagine they’ll do it
Well, early in the morning of November 6 the Houthis annoiunced that they were no longer in the ‘ship attacking’ business. Yes, under ‘please don’t upset the Houthi’s Iranian friends’ rules of engagement, we had a poor record. Faced with the mere possibility of less restrictive RoE, the Houthis withdrew.
–They’ve just launched their third big aircraft carrier. How many of the Royal Navy’s carriers currently work, by comparison?
Both are currently functional in home waters.
– One of these navies has genuine global striking power, and one is costumed pretenders who are aving a larf by suggesting they could sustain a war halfway across the planet.
Both navies have deployed their contemporary carrier assets to the South China Sea, but only one has also deployed them to British waters, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, the east coast of the USA, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Japan. Only one has used its modern* carrier assets in combat. Only one has used its modern carrier assets in conjunction with many allied navies; indeed only one of them has any allies at all.
The Chinese correctly describe Britain as America’s naval bitch. Our modest but advanced navy is essentially a semi independent subsidiary of the US Navy, designed from the ground(?) up to function in conjunction with big daddy. The Chinese essentially face the rest of the world. They are far from being up to the task at the moment. Their economy is teetering on going tits up as it is, and if they wish to go to war anytime soon (five years) the West (and local allies) will shut it down within three weeks without going near China.
Nevertheless, Steve’s peculiar delectation (level seven thigh-rubbing) at comparing us unfavourably with our foes does serve a useful function in reminding us that we are far too complacent.
*Only one of the Chinese carriers can be described as modern, and that third unit hasn’t reached operational status yet. Their first is a refurbished and updated Soviet ship (built 1980s); their second is a knock-off variation of that result. These two carry Chinese updated knock-offs of Russian SU-33s which are too heavy for full military capability when operating from the ships.
– Faced with the mere possibility of less restrictive RoE, the Houthis withdrew.
Plus the Israelis destroyed their main port, making Iranian imports more challenging.
The US basically hasn’t bothered with the Red Sea so far. Very little of their trade goes via that route; it’s basically a problem for Europe and China. The Houthis can be dealt with easily by sinking every unauthorised (by “us”) ship that tries to enter their ports. No more Iranian (and thus Russian and North Korean) munitions. Allow enough food through to placate our hand-wringers but otherwise fuck ’em back to the pre-modern they pretend to like.
Well the Houthis are still taking pot shots at passing ships, including a sustained drone attack on the USN flotilla. The last one that I know of was 17 Nov. They all missed or were shot down.
RAF and US aircraft bombed Sanaa on 10November.
Must admit I’d simply give the Houthis no food at all.
Of course the Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc could supply the place if they wished. But I see no reason to waste our money paying them to attack our ships.
PJF – The Chinese essentially face the rest of the world. They are far from being up to the task at the moment. Their economy is teetering on going tits up as it is, and if they wish to go to war anytime soon (five years) the West (and local allies) will shut it down within three weeks without going near China.
“The walls are closing in on
Trump! Putin!Xi!”Nevertheless, Steve’s peculiar delectation (level seven thigh-rubbing) at comparing us unfavourably with our foes
“If you don’t hate who Keir Starmer tells you to hate (and agree Keir Starmer can beat them up), you’re a wanker, ahaha!”
The US basically hasn’t bothered with the Red Sea so far
“They sent that aircraft carrier strike group as a JOKE”
The Houthis can be dealt with easily
“But we’ve decided to let them win for the past 12 months. Checkmate, Putler!”
Only one of the Chinese carriers can be described as modern, and that third unit hasn’t reached operational status yet. Their first is a refurbished and updated Soviet ship (built 1980s); their second is a knock-off variation of that result. These two carry Chinese updated knock-offs of Russian SU-33s which are too heavy for full military capability when operating from the ships
Both of China’s in-service aircraft carriers are ski jump types, very similar to the QE class except the Chinese propeller shafts work. Their third carrier, currently in sea trials, has an electromagnetic catapult launch system that makes it a lot more capable than the QE carriers. The QE carriers have a tiny air wing of 34 x F-35 jets, which are too heavy for full military capability when operating from the ships.
China is currently mass producing two of its own design stealth fighter planes, one of them being adapted for naval warfare. Unlike Britain, their ability to wage and win wars is not dependent on a foreign power.