ABM Q4 - Flipbook - Page 91
THE GRE AT DEBATE
HGV
→ Geoff Potter
is managing director at Gray & Adams
F
or more than two decades,
Geoff Potter has been a
prominent figure in the sector
through his work with trucks,
buses and trailers.
“I am not against battery
vehicles,” Potter says. “I believe
that battery vehicles do have
a role to play, but what I am
against is the legislative imposition of
any mandated technology.
“If we were in a situation where
battery vehicles were an option that
people could choose willingly at their
own volition, I would not have any issue
with that.”
As it stands, though, he sees the cut
off dates for the sale of new dieselpowered trucks – up to 26-tonne by
2035 and over 26-tonne by 2040 –
as fundamentally damaging for the
European automotive industry.
Potter says: “I have watched the
legislative imposition of battery vehicles
destroy the European automotive
industry for what I would call minimal
environmental benefit, and I do not want
to see the European commercial vehicle
industry destroyed in the same way.
“China's objective is global automotive
domination, which is being dressed up
as global automotive decarbonisation.
We must ask ourselves: is it wise to
legislatively enforce a technology in
which China has complete and utter
global dominance?”
Potter argues that the Government’s
classification of zero emission vehicles is
itself misleading. Policy is shaped around
zero tailpipe emissions, rather than the
overall impact of the vehicle.
“There’s no such thing as a zero
emissions vehicle,” he argues. “If we’re
truly interested in decarbonisation, we
have to look at life-cycle emissions.”
While Potter agrees that we should
minimise our impact on the environment,
he believes the scale of the issue is
largely misunderstood, adding: “Most
people’s perception is that the level of
atmospheric CO2 is much greater than
the 0.04% that it is, so their interpretation
of what UK decarbonisation measures
will yield tends to be highly exaggerated.
The UK contributes 0.9% of global CO2,
and within that transport contributes
28%. If we take a best-case scenario for
battery and a worst-case scenario for all
other technologies, and we were to say
that by mandating battery in the UK, we
would have a 40% reduction in CO2, the
actual global atmospheric impact of that
would equate to 0.00004%.”
The impact on operators is set to
be far greater, both operationally and
economically. Potter explains: “You
have range, you have battery longevity,
you have to factor in cold weather
performance, you have to factor in your
charging times, you have to factor in
the weight of the vehicle because you’re
going to have a reduced payload even
with an increased GVW, and you’re going
to have increased capital costs.”
Looking at the infrastructure needed
to support eHGVs, he adds: “Can the grid
cope? I think in its current format, the
honest answer to that is no. What will the
cost be of actually making the grid cope?
That’s another question.”
Potter argues that alternative fuels
such as biodiesel, HVO, biomethane,
e-fuels and hydrogen could all play
a role in decarbonisation, but that
the current legislative landscape has
stunted investment.
He concludes: “My end game is
to get the Government to change the
legislation away from mandating battery
vehicles and going for legislation that’s
based on full life-cycle emissions, which
means
that any type of technology
that meets that criteria can
be used.
“We have a situation here
where political correctness
has beaten pragmatism for
the last decade, and
we need to change that
around, where pragmatism
now beats political
correctness in the
incoming decade.
"All options must
be left on the table
and must not be
mandated by
Government.”
Q2 2026 AUTOMOTIVE
BUSINESS
