Volvo is going ‘all-electric’. It’s not as revolutionary as it seems

A Volvo electric car on charge. Image: Getty.

Last summer’s announcement from Volvo that all of its new models from 2019 will include an element of electric vehicle technology was a PR coup for the Swedish car maker. It received a disproportionate amount of attention as the “first major car company” to switch to all-electric. But the statement by their CEO Hakan Samuelson. that this “marks the end of the solely combustion engine powered car”, is more a reflection of Volvo’s position in the market than any justification of a global change.

Volvo, known for decades for its safety, has fallen behind other manufacturers when it comes to environmental credentials. It recently introduced hybrid versions of the XC90, XC60, S90 and V90. But let’s not forget that Toyota introduced the mass-produced hybrid, its Prius, worldwide in the year 2000. Toyota now have around 80 per cent of the global market for hybrid vehicles.

The question we should be asking is why Toyota or any of the other mainstream manufacturers have not come out with the same proposition to end the role of solely combustion engine powered cars? The answer lies in the fact that the major part of Volvo’s sales take place in Europe, the US and China. These markets have the potential to have the basic infrastructure in place that’s needed to support the electrification of vehicles.

Other manufacturers have a more global perspective and appreciate that, in parts of the world such as Africa and parts of South America, the idea of a regular supply of electricity for basic needs is of more pressing concern than the facility to plug in an electric vehicle. To some extent this position is really an admission that Volvo has limited expansion plans in developing markets and is happy to concentrate in its more established countries. A cynic might also suggest that the move helps the company meet the new more stringent EU emissions targets that are due to be introduced over the next few years.

Hybrids use two power sources. Image: Volvo.

Hybrid vehicles, by their very nature, require two power sources. One is a small, usually petrol-fuelled engine that charges the battery that drives the car. There are also more sophisticated developments that involve charging the battery while the car brakes but these are usually supplementary to the main form of electricity generation. Volvo’s claim gives the impression that petrol engines are a thing of the past when, with the current technology, they are still a critical part in the hybrid system.

New infrastructure

For car companies there is at least one major issue with a truly and entirely electric future. This prospect would mean that for the first time it would be those providing the infrastructure that would dictate what was happening in the motor industry.

Electric vehicles work well when the driver can charge the vehicle on a regular and convenient basis, usually overnight. This is fine if you have a driveway and a power source available. If, however, you live in a block of flats or in a terraced property there is a major issue. Battery life and access to a charging point add barriers in potential customers’ minds over the purchase of an electric vehicle. This makes the hybrid alternative a much more attractive proposition for all the major manufacturers who have or are in the process of developing hybrid models.


Volvo’s announcement also steals the show from perhaps the most interesting discussion about the future of cars. That’s whether or not hydrogen-powered vehicles will dominate the market – either as part of a hybrid system or as a fully hydrogen-powered fuel cell engine. There is only the Toyota Mirai available in a few developed markets and only 3,000 have been sold globally. The reason: a serious shortage of refuelling stations.

The emissions from these vehicles is water, and they are claimed to be environmentally neutral. Toyota and Hyundai have made major advances in this area but face the bigger problem of building the infrastructure to refuel hydrogen-powered cars. The installation of refuelling stations would require significant investment.

The ConversationSo, despite Volvo’s claims, the future of motoring will undoubtedly still include a petrol engine in some format in the immediate future. The only way that this is likely to change is if governments divert their infrastructure spending away from rail into opening up greener alternatives for drivers. This would improve the environment while still allowing the mobility that a car gives to people in everyday use. Even with car ownership declining in some cities, something will have to power the buses and taxis – and the cleaner that can be, the better for all.

Jim Saker is director of the Centre for Automotive Management at the School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Was the decline in Liverpool’s historic population really that unusual?

A view of Liverpool from Birkenhead. Image: Getty.

It is often reported that Liverpool’s population halved after the 1930s. But is this true? Or is it a myth?

Often, it’s simply assumed that it’s true. The end. Indeed, proud Londoner Lord Adonis – a leading proponent of the Liverpool-bypassing High Speed 2 railway, current chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, and generally a very influential person – stood on the stairs in Liverpool Town Hall in 2011 and said:

“The population of Liverpool has nearly halved in the last 50 years.”

This raises two questions. Firstly, did the population of the City of Liverpool really nearly halve in the 50 year period to 2011? That’s easy to check using this University of Portsmouth website – so I did just that (even though I knew he was wrong anyway). In 2011, the population of the City of Liverpool was 466,415. Fifty years earlier, in 1961, it was 737,637, which equates to a 37 per cent drop. Oops!

In fact, the City of Liverpool’s peak population was recorded in the 1931 Census as 846,302. Its lowest subsequent figure was recorded in the 2001 Census as 439,428 – which represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over a 70 year period.

Compare this to the population figures for the similarly sized City of Manchester. Its peak population also recorded in the 1931 Census as 748,729, and its lowest subsequent figure was also recorded in the 2001 Census, as 392,830. This also represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over the same 70 year period.

So, as can be seen here, Liverpool is not a special case at all. Which makes me wonder why it is often singled out or portrayed as exceptional in this regard, in the media and, indeed, by some badly briefed politicians. Even London has a similar story to tell, and it is told rather well in this recent article by a Londoner, for the Museum of London. (Editor’s note: It’s one of mine.)

This leads me onto the second question: where have all those people gone: London? The Moon? Mars?

Well, it turns out that the answer is bit boring and obvious actually: after World War 2, lots of people moved to the suburbs. You know: cars, commuter trains, slum clearance, the Blitz, all that stuff. In other words, Liverpool is just like many other places: after the war, this country experienced a depopulation bonanza.


So what form did this movement to the suburbs take, as far as Liverpool was concerned? Well, people moved and were moved to the suburbs of Greater Liverpool, in what are now the outer boroughs of the city region: Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton, Wirral. Others moved further, to Cheshire West & Chester, West Lancashire, Warrington, even nearby North Wales, as previously discussed here.

In common with many cities, indeed, Liverpool City Council actually built and owned large several ‘New Town’ council estates, to which they moved tens of thousands of people to from Liverpool’s inner districts: Winsford in Cheshire West (where comedian John Bishop grew up), Runcorn in Halton (where comedian John Bishop also grew up), Skelmersdale in West Lancashire, Kirkby in Knowsley. There is nothing unique or sinister here about Liverpool (apart from comedian John Bishop). This was common practice across the country – Indeed, it was central government policy – and resulted in about 160,000 people being ‘removed’ from the Liverpool local authority area.

Many other people also moved to the nearby suburbs of Greater Liverpool to private housing – another trend reflected across the country. It’s worth acknowledging, however, that cities across the world are subject to a level of ‘churn’ in population, whereby many people move out and many people move in, over time, too.

So how did those prominent images of derelict streets in the inner-city part of the City of Liverpool local authority area come about? For that, you have to blame the last Labour government’s over-zealous ‘Housing Market Renewal Initiative’ (HMRI) disaster – and the over enthusiastic participation of the then-Lib Dem controlled city council. On the promise of ‘free’ money from central government, the latter removed hundreds of people from their homes with a view to demolishing the Victorian terraces, and building new replacements. Many of these houses, in truth, were already fully modernised, owner-occupied houses within viable and longstanding communities, as can be seen here in Voelas Street, one of the famous Welsh Streets of Liverpool:

Voelas Street before HMRI implementation. Image: WelshStreets.co.uk.

The same picture after HMRI implementation Image: WelshStreets.co.uk. 

Nonetheless: the council bought the houses and ‘tinned them up’ ready for demolition. Then the coalition Conservative/Lib Dem government, elected in 2010, pulled the plug on the scheme. 

Fast forward to 2017 and many of the condemned houses have been renovated, in a process which is still ongoing. These are over-subscribed when they come to market, suggesting that the idea was never appropriate for Liverpool on that scale. 

At any rate, it turns out that the Liverpool metropolitan population is pretty much the same as it was at its peak in 1931 (depending where the local borough boundaries are arbitrarily drawn). It just begs the question: why are well educated and supposedly clever people misrepresenting the Liverpool metropolis, in particular, in this way so often? Surely they aren’t stupid are they?


And why are some people so determined to always isolate the City of Liverpool from its hinterland, while London is always described in terms of its whole urban area? It just confuses and undermines what would otherwise often be worthwhile comparisons and discussions. Or, to put it another way: “never, ever, compare apples with larger urban zones”.

In a recent Channel 4 documentary, for example, the well-known and respected journalist Michael Burke directly compared the forecast population growths, by 2039, of the City of Liverpool single local authority area against that of the combined 33 local authority areas of Greater London: 42,722 versus 2.187,708. I mean, what bizarre point is such an inappropriate comparison even trying to make? It is like comparing the projected growth of a normal sized-person’s head with the projected growth of the whole of an obese person, over a protracted period.

Having said all that, there is an important sensible conversation to be had as to why the populations of the Greater Liverpool metropolis and others haven’t grown as fast as maybe should have been the case, whilst, in recent times, the Greater London population has been burgeoning. But constantly pitching it as some sort of rare local apocalypse helps no one.

Dave Mail has declared himself CityMetric’s Liverpool City Region correspondent. He will be updating us on the brave new world of Liverpool City Region, mostly monthly, in ‘E-mail from Liverpool City Region’ and he is on twitter @davemail2017.