EU’s ‘engine’ stalls in Volkswagen scandal

UEA expert alert – Dr Konstantinos Chalvatzis: EU’s ‘engine’ stalls in Volkswagen scandal

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Plummeting consumer confidence in diesel cars will benefit hybrid and electric vehicle sales, according to an expert in energy technology at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Dr Konstantinos Chalvatzis, a senior lecturer in business and climate change at UEA’s Norwich Business School, said the fallout from the Volkswagen emissions testing scandal will cause a lack of faith in diesel engines, “which has been earned over the past decade in Europe.”

Dr Chalvatzis said: “It is important to consider the environmental angle since this is really a scandal about vehicle emissions that will impact the debates about diesel/petrol and electric mobility.

“While in the past diesel engines were valued for their dependability and modest consumption, during the last decade they have grown to be very powerful and at the same time very efficient. This claim is now in doubt and this will be a huge advantage for manufacturers that have invested in hybrid and electric vehicles.

“The timing is also quite crucial at a time when numerous European cities, including many in the UK, have started looking into ways to discourage diesel vehicles. The VW scandal will only give them new arguments.

“VW has secured sales in a very aggressive market by providing false emissions and consumption data and putting its vehicles at an unfair advantage over those of competitor manufacturers. It is safe to say that other manufacturers will be looking into their legal options on this issue, including requesting compensation for lost profits.”

With other German auto makers – including VW Group’s Audi, Porsche, Seat and Skoda – feeling the knock-on effect, Dr Chalvatzis said the scandal could dent the country’s reputation for reliability and dependability.

“The German automotive industry provides directly and indirectly no less than 20 per cent of the German industrial income. Germany is arguably the ‘engine’ of the EU economy and any impact on Germany exports can damage the EU economy as well. For the UK, there will possibly be winners in competitive manufacturers.”

Dr Chalvatzis said VW will need to pay approximately $18 billion in fines – and that’s “without estimating compensation costs for consumers and other litigation costs from other manufacturers.

“The automotive industry should for sure be braced for heavier regulations, especially with regards to the way issues of air pollution and fuel consumption are being monitored and controlled. Some manufacturers, particularly Japanese, may stand to win customers, especially if they have not relied as heavily in diesel sales.”

Dr Chalvatzis, who is UEA’s representative to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, is also a visiting scholar at the University of Maryland, USA. He is interested in energy technology and industrial innovation, including transport, and the impact on business and the environment.

I must say that I do not share the take on electric and hybrid cars being the future, in any way, shape or form, and also the fact that this “cheating” by VW has come to light only just at this time – while it, apparently, has been going on for some time – when VW, against the US' insistence, nay demand, for EU sanctions against Russia, has just opened a new engine factory in Russia points to a far different reason for this. And this reason being a kind of punishment for the German economy by the regime in Washington, especially that, apparently, BMW is also being implicated now, which looks as if some more candidates are actually being used.

Back to the electric (and hybrid) cars, however, and my reason for believing that they will not represent the answer in regards to personal transportation – and yes, I have mentioned this many times before but it would appear that it needs repeating – is the fact that the batteries require rare earth for the production which, well, as the name suggests, are rare and their extraction causes serious environmental damage. And that is aside from the price of those batteries. The story might be a different one if one would use, but the weight is a problem here, lead acid deep cycle batteries.

The car, in whichever engine form, is about to become history, do not be deceived, and we will have to look at other, older ways, again, for personal transportation, and this will be good for our health and that of the Planet, and in more ways than just eliminating any pollution caused by them, whether in driving or manufacture of the cars or their components. Admittedly the manufacture of bicycles also comes with an environmental footprint but it is far smaller than that of making cars, especially those whose batteries require rare earths and metals. In addition to that human-powered transportation in use, such as the bicycle, does not generate emissions and pollutants.

The dream of personal motoring which we have lived for almost a century now is coming to an end and not just because of the unsustainability of the the car, whether powered by an internal combustion engine or other means. Electric cars, due to their components, the raw materials for which are becoming rarer and rarer, will not become cheaper but dearer and, let's face it, also in many countries where on-street parking is the norm the charging of them overnight is not going to be a feasibility and thus those cars simply cannot replace the way we do things now.

The simple though for many unpalatable truth is that personal transportation of the future will be very much that of the past and we better get used to that idea and that rather quickly and adapt to it accordingly.

© 2015

The British Tories plan trains not planes, but not everyone is happy

UK Conservative’s Plan for Trains No Planes – Green or Not?

The Conservatives have opened up the transport debate – but the environmental case for high speed trains is far from proven – and the question, in my mind at least, also remains as to whether high speed rail links are actually needed. Punctuality and reliability and low cost would be a much better way to look at it. Ensure that trains can trains on the open stretches can do 100-150mph safely and we should be motoring along quite nicely. Get the infrastructure and the proper decent rolling stock and build some good nice locos that use wood rather than diesel... yes, I advocate the stream locos again... burning wood is, basically, carbon neutral as the only carbon released is that which the trees stored during their growing cycle.

Why are we so obsessed by speed, whether high-speed trains or ever faster this or that, including ever faster Internet. Why do we have to try to do a London to Birmingham, say, in 35mins by train? In my opinion a hour and a half, say, by a reliable and affordable train service with a frequency of at least hourly would be much better than any such high speed thingies.

The Tories, apparently, want a high speed rail line rather than a third runway at Heathrow, so the have said at conference. Only the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who is a member of the Tories, apparently, wants a new airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary, which would suggest, or so at least it would appear, that the Conservative Party is not quite singing from the same hymnal.

It is commendable, though, that the Tories are attempting to look at alternatives to the unwavering support to the aviation industry given by Labour. In her farewell speexch to Conference Ruth Kelly, for example, said that she supported a third runway at Heathrow because "we must be brave in challenging those who would ration flying and make it once more the preserve of the rich". This is not only impractical, but is nonsense in both economic and environmental terms. But should we have expected anything else from this particular minister and her party? I should think not. Once upon a time it would have been Labour who would have tried to be in the forefront of Green initiatives and would have been the first to suggest not to go with the third runway at Heathrow and also as regards to any expansions but, New Labour seems to be very different to Real Labour – time that we started that party, methinks. New labour has become a party of all the high flyers but is no longer the party of the common man and all they seem to have in mind is big business.

They talk green on one side and then they do something entirely different. They try to force the people do do this or that in regards to the green agenda and if the people don't they will get fined but they, and the government, do different. Obviously that is the prerogative of them in government. Do as we say but not as we do. They church was and is like that too.

We must, however, also admit that the Thatcherite policy of privatizing the railroads and the stations and such was the greatest mistake ever made in the same way as it was a mistake to privatize the utilities. This competition has not improved the services to the customers and users; rather the contrary, and made everything much more expensive, and as far as rail travel is concerned the costs have rust gone into the sky.

It is not a new runway at Heathrow that will improve that airport, or any other in the UK, but a better airport; and improved airport, that will make things better. Business and people do not want a bigger Heathrow; what they want is a better one.

We also do not, necessarily, need faster trains but more trains, more reliable trains and most importantly cheaper trains. Back to the future is the only way here.

I would rather be able to go to Birmingham from London at a train – steam train if need be – that does that distance in ninety minutes or thereabouts at hourly intervals at something around £45 return than flying there by plane with needing to be at the airport about one hour before for a short duration flight. No one can be expected to take the train – whose departure and arrival cannot be guaranteed at a cost of over £200 return when flying costs f a quarter of that. This just does not compute nor make sense.

Comments such as those by David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the move would “hold back British business in the future” are a load of garbage, pardon my French, though Christian Wolmar's summary of the high speed lines and their impact is why I am also so opposed to the high speed issue.

While, I am sure, we, especially those of us on the environmental conscious side, love trains and can but hope that the Tories would press for better rail travel the first thing that must be done is to make train travel (1) affordable for all again and (2) so much cheaper that it can beat flying. It does not make sense when I want to buy a ticket to travel to the NEC in Birmingham (need to use early train before the off-peak tickets are possible) and get quoted £225 return while I was quoted £64 return for a flight to Birmingham International, which is right next to the NEC. As long as costs for train travel remain in such astronomical proportions it will never make sense to use the train over the plane, on an economical level.

Personally, as I have said a number of times now, I doubt that we need the high speed lines at all. All we need, and I am sure most people would agree with me here, business people as well as ordinary travellers, is reliable, safe and cheap train travel, that will get us there around the time that we are supposed to get there.

© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>