Europe must catch up with Asian countries on hydrogen fuel cells - report

Canada EV Incentives drive adoption toward the 2035 zero-emission target, with rebates, federal and provincial programs boosting affordability amid concerns over charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and battery life, according to a BNN Bloomberg-Leger survey.

Key Points

Canada EV incentives are rebates and tax credits reducing EV costs to accelerate zero-emission vehicle adoption nationwide.

✅ Federal and provincial rebates reduce EV purchase prices

✅ Incentives offset range, battery, and charging concerns

✅ Larger incentives correlate with higher adoption rates

If the federal government wants to meet its ambitious EV goals of having all cars and passenger trucks sold in Canada be zero emissions by 2035, it’s going to have to do something about the cost of these vehicles.

A new survey from BNN Bloomberg and RATESDOTCA has found that cost is the number one reason stopping Canadians from buying an electric car.

The survey, which was conducted by Leger Marketing earlier this month, asked 1,511 Canadians if they were planning to purchase a new electric vehicle in the near future. It found that just over one in four, or 26 per cent of Canadians, are planning to do so, with Atlantic Canada lagging other regions. On the other hand, 19 per cent of Canadians are planning to buy a gas/diesel/hybrid card for their next purchase. 

Those who aren’t planning on buying an EV were asked what the biggest reason for their decision was. By far, it was the price of these vehicles: 31 per cent of this group cited cost as the main reason for not electrifying their ride. Another 59 per cent of respondents cited it as a concern, but not the main one. Other reasons for not wanting to buy an electric vehicle included lack of infrastructure (18 per cent), range concerns (16 per cent), and battery life and replacement (13 per cent), and some report EV shortages and wait times too.

What’s interesting is that it’s clear that government incentives for EVs are the most powerful tool right now to drive adoption, though some argue subsidies are a bad idea for Canada. When asked if further government incentives would convince them to buy an electric vehicle, 78 per cent of those surveyed said yes.

That’s right. If more governments increased the incentives offered for buying electric vehicles, reaching the goal of only selling zero emission vehicles in Canada by 2035 would no longer be a pipe dream, despite 2035 mandate skepticism from some.

At the moment, only Quebec and B.C. offer government incentives to buy an electric vehicle, even as B.C. charging bottlenecks are predicted. The federal government offers up to a $5,000 incentive, with restrictions including a limit on the total price of the vehicle, and has signaled EV sales regulations are forthcoming. Ontario previously offered a rebate of up to $14,000, however, the popular program was cancelled when the Progress Conservative government was elected in 2018.

The cancellation led to a plunge in new electric vehicle sales in Ontario, falling more than 55 per cent in the first six months of 2019 when compared to the same time period in the previous year, according to Electric Mobility Canada.

It’s no surprise that the larger the incentive, the more Canadians will be swayed to buy an electric car. Perhaps what’s surprising is that the incentive doesn’t even have to be as large as the previous Ontario rebate was. The survey found that seven per cent of Canadians would buy an electric vehicle if they got an incentive ranging anywhere from $5,001-$7,250. A full 35 per cent said a $12,500 or higher incentive would convince them.

The majority of Canadians surveyed said they use their vehicles for leisure or commuting to work. Leisure uses include running errands and seeing friends and family, of which 43 per cent of respondents said was the primary way they used their vehicle. Meanwhile, 36 per cent said they primarily used their car to commute to work.

The survey also found that incentives were more effective at convincing younger people to buy an electric vehicle. Eighty-three per cent of those under the age of 55 could be swayed by new incentives. But for those over 55, only 66 per cent said they would change their mind. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

100% Renewable Energy Transition unites solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and bioenergy with storage, smart grids, and sector coupling, delivering decarbonization, energy security, and lower LCOE amid post-Fukushima policy shifts and climate resilience goals.

Key Points

It is a pathway using all renewables plus storage and grids to fully decarbonize power, heat, transport, and industry.

✅ Integrates solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and bioenergy

✅ Uses storage, smart grids, and sector coupling for reliability

✅ Requires enabling policies, finance, and rapid deployment

Renewable energy organizations representing different spheres of the renewable energy community have gathered on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima nuclear accident to emphasize that renewable energies are not only available in abundance, with global renewable power on course to shatter more records, but ready to deliver a renewable world.

The combination of all renewable technologies, be it bioenergy, geothermal energy, hydropower, ocean energy, solar energy or wind power, in particular in combination with storage options, can satisfy all energy needs of mankind, be it for power, heating/cooling, transportation, or industrial processes.

Renewables have seen tremendous growth rates and cost reduction over the past two decades, but there are still many barriers that need to be addressed for a faster renewable energy deployment to eventually achieve global 100% renewable energy, as outlined in an on the road to 100% renewables initiative that charts the path. It is up to political decision-makers to create the legislative and regulatory conditions so that the renewable energy community can act as fast as needed.

Such rapid switch towards renewables is not only a must in light of nuclear risks and the growing threats of climate change, but also the necessary response to the current pandemic situation. And it will allow those hundreds of millions of humans in unserved areas to get for the first time ever access to modern energy services, as noted by a new IRENA report that details how renewables can decarbonise the energy sector and improve lives.

Speakers from the renewable energy community presented today in a joint webinar that a renewable future is a realistic vision, representing:

Energy Watch Group, Global100RE Platform, Global100RE Strategy Group, International Geothermal Association, ISEP Japan, REN Alliance, World Bioenergy Association, World Wind Energy Association.

Dr. Tetsunari Iida, Director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies ISEP Japan:

Ten years ago, on 11 March 2021, the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred. It is a "coincidence of global history" that it now coincides with the starting point of the 100% renewable energy initiative that is accelerating around the world.

The world has changed dramatically since 311. Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea, China and many other countries were all shocked by 311 and shifted their focus from nuclear power to renewable energy, and in the U.S. clean energy industries are setting sights on market majority to accelerate this trend. The next ten years will be the decade in which this perception will rapidly become the "new reality". 311 was the "starting point" for a structural energy shift in world history.

Hans-Josef Fell, former MP, President of the Energy Watch Group and co-initiator of the Global100RE Strategy Group:

The disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl are urging the entire world to quickly end the use of atomic energy, and many call for a fossil fuel lockdown to catalyze a climate revolution alongside the transition. Contrary to what is often claimed, nuclear energy cannot make a contribution to climate protection, but only creates immense problems with toxic radioactivity emissions, nuclear waste, atomic bomb material and the dangers of a nuclear catastrophe. In contrast, 100% renewable energies until 2030 can help achieve climate protection and a simultaneous nuclear phase-out, according to a recently published statement by a world-leading group of energy researchers from the USA, EU and Australia.

Their research suggests that a 100% renewable energy supply, including storage systems, can provide full energy security for all of mankind by 2030 and will even be cheaper than the existing nuclear and fossil energy supply, and with over 30% of global electricity already from renewables, momentum is strong. The only requirement for implementation is the right decisions taken by decision makers both in governments and industry. All technical and economic prerequisites for a disruptive conversion of the global energy supply to 100% renewable energies are already in place.

Hon. Peter Rae AO, President of WWEA and Honorary Chairman of the REN Alliance:

40 years ago, the idea of developing nuclear power appealed to me as a non-polluting method of generating electricity. So I studied it. How to deal with waste and how to ensure it would not create a danger to life. Along came Chernobyl and other accidents. Storage of waste was leaving dangerous hiding places while some waste was alleged to be dumped at sea. I became more and more concerned. There were demonstrations that the existing methods were dangerous and required very strict construction and operational tolerances - up went the cost. Long delays and huge cost increases. I had visited nuclear power stations and talked to expert proponents in UK, France, US, Taiwan and Australia, and debates such as New Zealand's electricity future reflect similar concerns. The more I did the more certain I became that it was not the way to go. Then Fukushima put the dangers and cost beyond doubt.

Let's get on with the rollover to renewables.

Dr. Marit Brommer, Executive Director of the International Geothermal Association IGA:

The IGA is proud to work with all renewable energy associations to continuously provide a unified voice to a cleaner energy future. The Geothermal sector is proven to be a partner of choice for many locations in the world serving baseload power and clean heat to customers. We are particularly interested in the increased attention system integration gets, which underpins the importance of all renewables coming together at events such as the webinar organised by the WWEA.

Christian Rakos, President of the World Bioenergy Association:

The IPCC has emphasized the important role of sustainable bioenergy for climate protection. Recent advances in technology allow us to use feedstock from forestry, wood processing and agricultural production in an efficient and clean way. Today, bioenergy already contributes 12 - 13% to global final energy demand. Importantly, contribution from bioenergy is more than 5 times as much as nuclear energy worldwide. Together with other renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower, bioenergy can increase the contribution in a substantial way to meet the energy demands of all end use sectors and meet the international energy and climate goals.

Stefan Gsanger, Secretary General of the World Wind Energy Association and Co-chair of the Global100RE Platform:

The switch to a renewable energy future requires new political and economic thinking: from centralised structures with few large actors towards decentralised, participatory models with millions of communities and citizens playing an active role, not only as consumers but also as producers of energy. To make this new paradigm the predominant energy paradigm is the true challenge of the energy transformation which we as the world community are facing. If we manage this shift well and on time, billions of people across the globe, in industrialised and developing countries alike, will benefit and will face a bright future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Renewable Energy Forecast 2024 will see wind and solar power surpass one-fourth of electricity generation, EIA projects, as coal declines, natural gas dips, and clean energy capacity, grid integration, and policy incentives expand.

Key Points

EIA outlook: renewables at 26% of U.S. power in 2024, led by wind and solar as coal declines and gas share dips.

✅ Wind and solar hit 18% combined, surpassing coal's 17%.

✅ Natural gas dips to 37% as demand rebounds modestly.

✅ Coal plant closures accelerate amid costs, emissions, and age.

Renewable energy is poised to reach a milestone, after a record 28% in April this year, as a new government report projects that wind, solar and other renewable sources will exceed one-fourth of the country’s electricity generation for the first time, in 2024.

This is one of the many takeaways from the federal government’s Short Term Energy Outlook, a monthly report whose new edition is the first to include a forecast for 2024. The report’s authors in the Energy Information Administration are expecting renewables to increase in market share, while natural gas and coal would both decrease.

From 2023 to 2024, renewables would rise from 24 percent to 26 percent of U.S. electricity generation; coal’s share would drop from 18 percent to 17 percent; gas would remain the leader but drop from 38 percent to 37 percent; and nuclear would be unchanged at 19 percent.

It was a big deal in 2020 when generation from renewables passed coal for the first time in 130 years over a full year. Coal made a comeback in 2021 and then retreated again in 2022 as renewables surpassed coal in generation. The ups and downs were largely the result of fluctuations in electricity demand during and then after the Covid-19 pandemic.

The new report indicates that coal doesn’t have another comeback in the works. This fuel, which was the country’s leading electricity source less than a decade ago, is declining as many coal-fired power plants are old and economically uncompetitive. Coal plants continue to close, and developers aren’t building new ones because of concerns about high costs and emissions, a trend underscored when renewables became the second-most prevalent source in 2020 across the U.S.

The growth in renewable energy is coming from wind and solar power, with wind responsible for about one-third of the growth and solar accounting for two-thirds, the report says, and combined output from wind and solar has already exceeded nuclear for the first time in the U.S. Other renewable sources, like hydropower and biomass, would be flat.

In fact, the growth of wind and solar is projected to be so swift that the combination of just those two sources would be 18 percent of the U.S. total by 2024, which would surpass coal’s 17 percent.

A key variable is overall electricity consumption. EIA is projecting that this will fall 1 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, due a mild summer. Then, consumption will increase 1 percent in 2024.

If demand was rising more, then natural gas power would likely gain market share because of gas power plants’ ability to vary their output as needed to respond to changes in demand.

I asked Eric Gimon, a senior fellow at the think tank Energy Innovation, what he thinks of these latest numbers.

He said wind and solar have gotten so big that it almost makes sense to track them as their own categories as opposed to lumping them into the larger category of renewables. He expects that the government will do this sometime soon.

Also, he thinks the projected increases for wind and solar, while substantial, are still smaller than those resources are likely to grow.

“My experience over the last 10 years is that the EIA tends to have flattish forecasts,” he said, meaning the federal office has underestimated the actual growth.

Some energy analysts have criticized EIA for being slow to recognize the growth of renewables. But much of the criticism is about the Annual Energy Outlook, which has numbers going out to mid-century, even as the U.S. is moving toward 30% from wind and solar by the end of the decade. The Short Term Energy Outlook, with numbers going one year into the future, has been more reliable.

Gimon said EIA is “kind of like your conservative uncle” in its forecasts, so it’s notable that the office expects to see a significant uptick in wind and solar.

Even so, he thinks the latest Short Term Energy Outlook should be read as the lower end of the range of potential increase for wind and solar.

For him to be right, the wind and solar industries will need to figure out solutions to the challenges they’ve been having in obtaining parts; they will need to make progress in dealing with local opposition to many projects and in having enough interstate power lines to deliver the electricity. And, new policies like the Inflation Reduction Act will need to have their desired effect of encouraging projects through the use of tax incentives.

It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that clean energy industries will make some progress on all of those fronts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

The Netherlands grid crisis exposes how rapid renewable energy growth is straining transmission capacity. Solar, wind, and electric vehicle demand are overloading networks, forcing officials to urge reduced peak-time power use and accelerate national grid modernization plans.

Main Points

The Netherlands grid crisis refers to national electricity congestion caused by surging renewable energy generation and rising consumer demand.

✅ Grid congestion from rapid solar and wind expansion

✅ Strained transmission and distribution capacity

✅ National investment in smart grid upgrades

The Dutch government is urging households to reduce electricity consumption between 16:00 and 21:00 — a signal that the country’s once-stable power grid is under serious stress. The call comes amid an accelerating shift to wind and solar power that is overwhelming transmission infrastructure and creating “grid congestion” across regions, as seen in Nordic grid constraints this year.

In a government television campaign, a narrator warns: “When everyone uses electricity at the same time, our power grid can become overloaded. That could lead to failures — so please try to use less electricity between 4 pm and 9 pm.” The plea reflects a system where supply occasionally outpaces the grid’s ability to distribute it, with some regions abroad issuing summer blackout warnings already.

According to Dutch energy firm Eneco’s CEO, Kys-Jan Lamo, the root of the problem lies in the mismatch between modern renewable generation and a grid built for centralized fossil fuel plants. He notes that 70% of Eneco’s output already comes from solar and wind, and this “grid congestion is like traffic on the power lines.” Lamo explains:

“The grid congestion is caused by too much demand in some areas of the network, or by too much supply being pushed into the grid beyond what the network can carry.”

He adds that many of the transmission lines in residential areas are narrow — a legacy of when fewer and larger power plants fed electricity through major feeder lines, underscoring grid vulnerabilities seen elsewhere today. Under the new model, renewable generation occurs everywhere: “This means that electricity is now fed into the grid even in peripheral areas with relatively fine lines — and those lines cannot always cope.”

Experts warn that resolving these issues will demand years of planning and immense investment in smarter grid infrastructure over the coming years. Damien Ernst, an electrical engineering professor at Liège University and respected voice on European grids, states that the Netherlands is experiencing a “grid crisis” brought on by “insufficient investment in distribution and transmission networks.” He emphasizes that the speed of renewable deployment has outpaced the grid’s capacity to absorb it.

Eneco operates a “virtual power plant” control system — described by Lamo as “the brain we run” — that dynamically balances supply and demand. During periods of oversupply, the system can curtail wind turbines or shut down solar panels. Conversely, during peak demand, the system can throttle back electricity provision to participating customers in exchange for lower tariffs. However, these techniques only mitigate strain — they cannot replace the need for physical upgrades or bolster resilience to extreme weather outages alone.

The bottleneck has begun limiting new connections: “Consumers often want to install heat pumps or charge electric vehicles, but they increasingly find it difficult to get the necessary network capacity,” Lamo warns. Businesses too are struggling. “Companies often want to expand operations, but cannot get additional capacity from grid operators. Even new housing developments are affected, since there’s insufficient infrastructure to connect whole communities.”

Currently, thousands of businesses are queuing for network access. TenneT, the national grid operator, estimates that 8,000 firms await initial connection approval, and another 12,000 seek to increase their capacity allocations. Stakeholders warn that unresolved congestion risks choking economic growth.

According to Kys-Jan Lamo: “Looking back, almost all of this could have been prevented.” He acknowledges that post-2015 climate commitments placed heavy emphasis on adding generation and on grid modernization costs more broadly, but “we somewhat underestimated the impact on grid capacity.”

In response, the government has introduced a national “Grid Congestion Action Plan,” aiming to accelerate approvals for infrastructure expansions and to refine regulations to promote smarter grid use. At the same time, feed-in incentives for solar power are being scaled back in some regions, and certain areas may even impose charges to integrate new solar systems into the grid.

The scale of what’s needed is vast. TenneT has proposed adding roughly 100,000 km of new power lines by 2050 and investing in doubling or tripling existing capacity in many areas. However, permit processes can take eight years before construction begins, and many projects require an additional two years to complete. As Lamo points out, “the pace of energy transition far exceeds the grid’s existing capacity — and every new connection request simply extends waiting lists.”

Unless grid expansion keeps up, and as climate pressures intensify, the very clean energy future the Netherlands is striving for may remain constrained by the physics of distribution.

Related Articles

• Electricity Forum World News

UK Transport Policy Overhaul signals bans on petrol and diesel cars, rail franchising reform, 15-minute cities, and active travel, tackling congestion, emissions, microplastics, urban sprawl, and public health with systemic, multimodal planning.

Key Points

A shift toward EVs, rail reform, and 15-minute cities to reduce emissions, congestion, and health risks.

✅ Phase-out of petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

✅ Urban design: 15-minute cities, cycling, and active travel

Could it be true? That this government will bring all sales of petrol and diesel cars to an end by 2030, even as a 2035 EV mandate in Canada is derided by critics? That it will cancel all rail franchises and replace them with a system that might actually work? Could the UK, for the first time since the internal combustion engine was invented, really be contemplating a rational transport policy? Hold your horses.

Before deconstructing it, let’s mark this moment. Both announcements might be a decade or two overdue, but we should bank them as they’re essential steps towards a habitable nation.

We don’t yet know exactly what they mean, as the government has delayed its full transport announcement until later this autumn. But so far, nothing that surrounds these positive proposals makes any sense, and the so-called EV revolution often proves illusory in practice.

If the government has a vision for transport, it appears to be plug and play. We’ll keep our existing transport system, but change the kinds of vehicles and train companies that use it. But when you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.

A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution, though the benefits depend on the power mix; in Canada, Canada’s grid was 18% fossil-fuelled in 2019, for example. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.

Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, alongside EV battery recycling efforts, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, a University of Toronto study warns they are not a silver bullet, and we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.

Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.

So far, the government seems to have no interest in systemic change. It still plans to spend £27bn on building even more roads, presumably to accommodate all those new electric cars. An analysis by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that this road-building will cancel out 80% of the carbon savings from a switch to electric over the next 12 years. But everywhere, even in the government’s feted garden villages and garden towns, new developments are being built around the car.

Rail policy is just as irrational, even though lessons from large electric bus fleets offer cleaner mass transit options. The construction of HS2, now projected to cost £106bn, has accelerated in the past few months, destroying precious wild places along the way, though its weak business case has almost certainly been destroyed by coronavirus.

If one thing changes permanently as a result of the pandemic, it is likely to be travel. Many people will never return to the office. The great potential of remote technologies, so long untapped, is at last being realised. Having experienced quieter cities with cleaner air, few people wish to return to the filthy past.

Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response, though why electric buses haven’t taken over remains a live question. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.

Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.

This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News