Electric cars are not a 21st-century technological innovation. They are
contemporary with the invention of combustion-engine cars at the end ofthe 19th century and are based on an even older technology: the fuel
cell. Certainly, there have been some improvements in the ability of
batteries to store energy, but we are by no means witnessing a new
"industrial revolution." Fossil-fuel capitalism is simply looking for an
escape hatch to reap profits from the ongoing climate crisis. The
political and economic bourgeoisie are agreeing on this "energy
transition." In the European Union, the dates of 2035 for the end of new
petroleum-powered vehicles and 2050 for carbon neutrality have been put
forward, without anyone really knowing how this will solve the problems.
On the contrary, the car will become increasingly present in our lives
and will continue to conquer markets such as those in Africa. Welcome to
Back to the Future.
Batteries, an old story
As a reminder, a battery is a chemical process for storing electricity.
The first battery was the cell, which was invented by the Italian
Allesandro Volta in 1800. Its name comes from the stack of zinc and
copper discs that form the anode and cathode, separated by a layer of
fabric impregnated with salt water, which is called the electrolyte.
That's it for the quick chemistry lesson... If the battery is
rechargeable, we talk about an accumulator or a "cell" since things are
at the nanoscale. Ultimately, a battery is an assembly of accumulators.
It was the Frenchman Gaston Planté who first succeeded in storing
electricity in 1860 with lead/acid accumulators. This technology is
still widely used since it constitutes 99% of batteries, notably those
in our thermal cars. To make an electric car, the battery must be
coupled to a motor. This first involved the invention of the dynamo by
the German military engineer Siemens between 1866-1869; then the Belgian
Gramme perfected the dynamo by making it "double flux", that is to say
that if an electric current is introduced into it, it turns. The engine
was born!
You have to cross the Atlantic Ocean to see the industrial production of
the first large accumulators with Edison, the inventor of the famous
filament light bulb. With capital from the banker JP Morgan, he created
the Edison Illuminating Company, which later became Edison General
Electric and finally General Electric. These batteries were used to
store the energy produced by the first large power plant in New
York-which ran on coal and happily polluted the Hudson-from 1882. Edison
also invented alkaline-nickel-iron batteries. Improvements to battery
components continued throughout the 20th century: the nickel-cadmium
battery; the nickel-cadmium-iron battery found in rockets and
satellites; and finally, the famous lithium battery, which is the most
efficient for storing electricity. The latter was developed in the 1980s
by American and Japanese researchers, which earned them a Nobel Prize in
2019 with the 900,000 dollars that went with it...
Batteries in cars
Again, it's an old story because the idea was born at the same time as
the invention of thermal engines and, at the turn of the 20th century,
it was a race to win the market between steam, oil or electric cars. In
1891, while Panhard-Levassor drove a thermal car from Porte d'Ivry to
Boulogne-Billancourt, the French coachbuilder Charles Jeantaud covered
12 km in a battery-powered automobile. The electric car had advantages
over its competitors: it was quieter, less dirty and starting it didn't
require exhausting cranking. Electricity started in pole position! The
first New York taxis were electric (600 examples in 1900) thanks to the
Electrobat model nicknamed the electro-bat; in 1900, there were twice as
many electric cars produced as its smoking rivals but the competition
was also sporting. In 1899, Belgian entrepreneur Camille Jenatzy was the
first to break the 100 km/h barrier with his "never content," a
torpedo-shaped car. But gasoline was more successful in sporting terms,
and the 24 Hours of Le Mans, created in 1906, crowned the new major
brands of internal combustion engines: Renault, Fiat, and Opel. Henry
Ford still considered making a "low-cost" electric model like his famous
Ford-T, but problems with recharging, range, and an insufficient
electrical network squelched the project. Ultimately, it was the
electric starter for internal combustion engines, which appeared in
1911, that definitively killed off all competition.
An electric jolt took place after the oil crisis of 1973 and in the
United States, after the adoption of the Clean Air Act in 1970 - a
federal law wanted by Nixon to remedy air pollution in megacities like
Los Angeles, invaded by thick smog (gasoline was still leaded). Thus, a
credit of 160 million dollars was allocated to develop the electric car
but the oil companies (Exxon in the lead) stepped up and the Republican
President Gerald Ford (of the family!) vetoed it. With oil prices
returning to an acceptable normality, the oil order returned.
The 2000s brought electric cars back into fashion with the first
considerations of CO2 and global warming. In the United States,
anti-pollution laws were adopted, such as the Zero Emission Vehicle
(ZEV) regulation in 1990, which imposed a quota of 10% non-polluting
vehicles by 2003. General Motors hoped to overtake the competition with
its Electric Vehicle One (EV1) in 1996, which allowed a range of 250 km.
But it didn't sell. The group went through a crisis and abandoned the
EV1 in 1999, much to the relief of the oil lobby and Detroit - the
capital of the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler). In France, it was the
same trajectory. Peugeot built the 106 Vedelic in 1995, but it was
expensive (34,600 euros today!) for a range of 100 km. There will be
just over 2,000 individual customers. In 2009, under the impetus of the
then Minister of the Environment, Jean Louis Borloo, an "e-car" plan was
launched, and Renault developed the Zoé (named after France's first
nuclear reactor). It didn't sell there either.
The electric car business only took off with Musk and his Tesla. The
company was founded in 2003, but for a long time it was loss-making. In
2019, its cumulative debt reached $11 billion, and it wasn't until 2021
that the first major profits arrived. Any automotive group would have
gone out of business, but Musk comes from a tech and startup background.
He already made his fortune by inventing and then reselling PayPal (an
online payment platform), and he relies on the stock price because Tesla
remains well-listed, benefiting from the troublemaker's brand image. In
the material world, there are also innovations that allow us to speak
today of "Teslism," succeeding Fordism and Toyotism as a social
relationship to work-even if these two forms of assembly-line work
persist and complement each other. Tesla is the only car manufacturer to
mold the large aluminum panels that form the vehicle's body in a single
piece. This saves a lot of money on welding. Unionism is vigorously
fought, and Musk sets up shop in the southern states of the USA, which
lack this labor tradition. Finally, the car becomes a smartphone on
wheels, making the object even more desirable. Super software regularly
updates the car, so you can watch a Netflix series while it's charging
at a station. Tesla is also developing superchargers that are becoming
the standard for other brands, ensuring it a lucrative near-monopoly.
The cars' range exceeds 600 km (in optimal conditions, never before
achieved). Ultimately, Tesla has managed to gain the upper hand over the
competition. The brand's margin is $9,574 per vehicle sold, compared to
EUR1,197 for Toyota and $973 for Volkswagen. But be careful, not
everyone can buy a Tesla, the object remains that of a social elite or
of people who bleed themselves dry of credit to have this object of desire.
The democratization of the electric car comes from China and its
flagship automotive group: BYD (for "Build Your Dreams"), which aims to
become the world leader in electric vehicles. The company has benefited
from colossal public investments, thanks to the priority given to
electric vehicles by the Party's five-year plan (see below). The
domestic market has also allowed it to confirm its first steps,
considering that each year, 23 million new cars are sold in China. In
2022, BYD will manufacture 900,000 vehicles compared to 1.3 million for
Tesla. Since then, the two groups have been chasing each other. The
company was founded in 1995 in Shenzhen by chemical engineer Wang
Chuanfu. He made his fortune in lithium-ion batteries for the first
smartphones and then expanded his business into renewable energy storage
and transportation. Today, it is a monstrous group of 620,000 employees,
including 60,000 at its headquarters. Unlike the number 1 battery
manufacturer, which is also Chinese (the CATL company - but which does
not manufacture vehicles), BYD wants to control the entire automotive
value chain with very few subcontractors and therefore maximum added
value - around 25% compared to the competition. BYD offers 6 models of
electric cars, including the "Dolphin," which sells from 33,900 euros
(excluding the ecological bonus), 7,000 euros cheaper than Renault's
Mégane E-Tech. To continue to stand out, the brand is relying on LFP
(lithium, iron, and phosphate) batteries, which are less efficient than
NMCL (nickel, manganese, cobalt, and lithium) but which are less
demanding in rare earths and are considered non-flammable. To date,
there are assembly lines in Brazil, Thailand, and Uzbekistan, with
others planned for Mexico and Indonesia. But it's towards Europe, where
China already sells 40% of its electric vehicle inventory, that
manufacturers are eyeing. And to control logistics, BYD even
manufactures its own roll-on/roll-off ships (eight planned) and unloads
mainly in the ports of Flushing (Netherlands) and Bremerhaven (Germany).
France and the EU in all this?
As we have just seen, the electric market is dominated by the Americans
and the Chinese. France and the EU are lagging behind and are just
developing their battery capitalism (read the article on the battery
valley in Hauts de France). Nevertheless, France has some advantages due
to the existence of automotive giants like Stellantis (ex-PSA) or SAFT
(Société d'Accumulateurs Fixes et de Traction) which was bought by Total
and remains one of the battery leaders in the world. SAFT is a partner
in the gigafactory that has just opened in Douvrin (62). In 2023, the
century-old company will have a turnover of 1.2 billion euros and employ
4,500 people in 19 countries. The brand is unknown to the general public
because it supplies manufacturers, particularly in the aerospace and
aeronautics sectors. SAFT batteries are found in Boeing, Airbus, Mirage,
Rafale, Ariane rockets, and even satellites. Since 2016, Total has taken
control of the company and sees it as a sustainable investment for its
money, which still smells a little too much of oil. As for SAFT, its
history is shady.
SAFT, as well as other French battery brands like Fulmen or Wonder, had
the Army as a privileged client and during the Second World War, they
would do like the others, cheerfully collaborating with the Nazi system
and its ilk. But before that, there was the First World War. Already,
there was electricity in certain military vehicles, first and foremost,
submarines that needed discretion underwater. Regarding SAFT, it was
requisitioned to manufacture poison gas, phosgene (the other name for
carbon oxychloride) less famous than mustard gas, but which would be
responsible for 85% of deaths by chemical weapons between 1914-1918.
Between 1939-1945, the company would collaborate fully with Germany by
working with the AFA (Accumulatoren Fabrik Aktiengesellschaft) which
manufactured the famous Varta battery. The two French factories were
then in Romainville (93) and Lille (Tudor company) and they were made
available to the occupier along with their raw materials. In 1946, SAFT
and most of the major industrialists who collaborated were pardoned -
the boss of Renault died, admittedly, in prison but before being tried.
Economy comes before everything! For its part, the AFA and its boss
Gunther Quandt owned two concentration camps: Hanover-Stöcken and
Mauthausen-Gusen in Austria. The prisoners worked lead and manganese
there and life expectancy was 6 months because the convicts died of lead
poisoning. The batteries manufactured were used for the V2. Also
acquitted after the war, the Quandt family remained in the capital of
Varta until 1990 and today, it is a major shareholder of BMW (47%).
Let's return to today and the European Union. This free trade area seeks
to protect itself, like others, from competition by using customs
duties. Whatever they say about sacrosanct liberalism in Brussels,
imports of Chinese electric cars are taxed at 38%, starting in July 2024
- in addition to the existing 10% customs duty. This varies depending on
the brand: 17.4% for the Chinese manufacturer BYD, 19.9% for Geely, and
37.6% for SAIC. The justification is that the Chinese government
subsidizes the sector and therefore it constitutes unfair competition.
But this doesn't prevent business, because in 2024, Chinese companies
will have 22% of the European market, compared to 3% three years
earlier. In the corridors of power, there are perpetual negotiations:
"If you tax me, I'll tax you," etc. Another circumvention strategy
involves factories being set up on EU soil, such as BYD, which has
announced the upcoming opening of an assembly line in Szeged, Hungary.
Talks are also taking place with Meloni's Italy, which would like to end
the monopoly of the Stellantis (Fiat-PSA-Opel) conglomerate. Finally,
it's worth remembering that the automotive sector in the EU accounts for
14.6 million jobs and 7% of GDP.
The transition turn
The electric car has become the symbol of the Transition that
capitalists want to sell us. This term replaces the hackneyed term of
sustainable development, but upon closer examination, it's the same
logic: that of greening capitalism to make people believe it's
compatible with a livable and desirable future. The word, in its current
meaning, was popularized by Rob Hopkins, a British academic who wants to
adapt cities to climate change. Today, the Transition is everywhere;
it's energetic, democratic, and environmental, and we readily associate
it with the idea of Resilience to make us understand that we shouldn't
rebel, but rather accept the new situation and adapt. If we look at the
energy transition, it's completely hollow because energy sources,
instead of replacing each other, are adding up. This is what
Jean-Baptiste Fressoz shows very well in his book Sans Transition. We
have never consumed so much wood, coal, oil, uranium, and, in the
future, rare earths to meet the needs of the capitalist system
(production, consumption, communication). Behind this deception, the
rhetoric is still being constructed to make us believe in a real
revolution, like the electric car revolution. After the words, there are
the political and economic actions that are structuring the society and
work of tomorrow.
At the political level, the offensive of this paragon of "new"
capitalism that is the Transition took place around the year 2015 during
which three key events should be noted:
In March 2015, the Chinese Communist Party launched the "Made in China
2025" strategy, which aimed to transform the country from a mass
producer to a quality producer. The five-year plans-here, the 13th and
14th-are formidable tools for massive public investment in sectors such
as artificial intelligence, 5G, robotics, biotechnology, aerospace,
semiconductors, nuclear power, renewable energy, and electric cars.
Behind the rise in battery technology, there is also a public health
problem: air pollution, which causes the premature deaths of nearly two
million Chinese (three times more than Covid). Not to mention that
episodes of smog paralyze social and economic activity in major cities,
as schools and factories close, sometimes for several days. Today, it is
difficult to know how much the Chinese government has spent on this
economic plan, but some speak of several hundred billion dollars.
September 2015 saw the outbreak of "dieselgate," which initially
concerned Volkswagen but in reality affected all major automotive
groups. Independent scientists measured pollutant emission rates
(including nitrogen dioxide) much higher than those announced by the
manufacturers. It was discovered that Volkswagen had developed secret
software that minimized the pollution of its diesel vehicles, while the
brand was making money by declaring it had invented a "clean diesel."
The scandal provided an opportunity to announce political shifts in
transportation. This would lead, among other things, to the European
Green Deal in 2019. The European Commission planned investments of
EUR1,000 billion over 10 years to finance the energy transition with
renewables, nuclear power, and electric batteries. The goal is carbon
neutrality by 2050.
December 2015 saw the COP21 in Paris, a major showcase for climate
awareness. All stakeholders set a limit of +1.5 degrees Celsius not to
be exceeded. Ten years later, we have already crossed this limit, and
estimates of temperature disruption are growing. This COP21, backed by
the expertise of IPCC scientists, advocated a whole series of scenarios
and solutions for adapting to the climate crisis: the electric car was
cited as the carbon tax that pushed capitalists dependent on fossil
fuels to reinvest in "green" energy.
The Sacred Union of the Battery
As with any self-proclaimed industrial revolution, states,
industrialists, scientists, and journalists are all getting in tune to
bring about and accept a mode of production and capital accumulation in
the territories in question. It starts with "crazy money." This
expression, dear to Macron, sums up well the bottle-feeding of battery
capitalists (who are the same as those in oil) by more or less
authoritarian states. Each economic hub will develop its sector (see
above): China with BYD and CATL, the United States with Tesla, and
finally the EU with Stellantis, Volkswagen, Fiat, etc. For each
gigafactory, the political bourgeoisies advance almost a third of the
investments for the start-up of production, the circulation of goods,
and ultimately the complete provision of the territory and its workforce
(see article on the Battery Valley in Hauts-de-France). Finally, there
is consumer aid to stimulate demand, which would otherwise be at a
standstill.
In France, the ecological bonus and the ecological conversion bonus are
being implemented at a cost of 8 billion euros. There is also the France
Relance 2030 plan implemented just after COVID, which plans to invest 54
billion euros to reindustrialize France, 5 billion of which are just for
electric cars. That's the carrot; now we need a stick to force the
population to change their behavior. This has been achieved with the
creation of ZFE, low-emission zones (CO2) in 2019 and the Mobility
Orientation Law, which makes them mandatory in major French cities,
which everyone is likely to use at one time or another. The 2021 Climate
and Resilience Law clarified the timing of traffic bans for the most
polluting vehicles: Crit'air 5, banned in 2023; Crit'air 4 in 2024;
Crit'air 3 in 2025. If the law is not respected, motorists face a
third-class fine (EUR68). Some cities, like Lyon, are enforcing it,
while many others, like Lille, are playing for time, sensing that the
issue is socially explosive. But with the return of budgetary austerity
and the specter of yet another crisis, things are stagnating. The
conversion bonus, also known as the scrappage bonus, has just been
abolished in 2025. It allowed drivers to receive up to EUR5,000 to
exchange their car for an electric one. ZFEs are being challenged in
Parliament, particularly by the far right, who see them as a means of
"socializing."
The social-democratic left is obviously participating in this sacred
union of bourgeois ecology. The Greens and the Insoumis, like everyone
else, applaud the energy transition and the fact that we must all have
an electric car. You have to read the statements of some and others when
the opening of a gigafactory in the region is announced, everyone votes
yes (see article on Hauts-de-France). The same goes for environmental
associations like Greenpeace, Young for the Climate, etc. The alarmist
discourse and the fear of collapse prevent or invisibilize any critical
discourse of transitional capitalism. The only horizon is that of the
management or reform of the system without ever seriously evoking the
revolutionary rupture with a serious questioning of work and affiliated
social relations, the advent of libertarian communism! Before that, we
must not rush things and see where we are starting from, for the moment,
it is not joyful.
Contradictions, hopes of struggle?
Transition and battery capitalism must be fought like all other forms of
capitalism. It is the resurgence of the old car and oil capitalism
coupled with that of nuclear power, seeking a new lease on life, with
the same flaws. Among them, it is interesting to highlight certain
already existing contradictions that may give hope for erosion and the
creation of potential spaces for struggle. As has been said, the sector
is currently going through a valley of death (see article on
Hauts-de-France). Demand is not there, and supply is not complete. The
Northvolt company recently filed for bankruptcy. Suez, which manages
battery recycling, is pausing its investment program. As for battery
technologies, between lithium-ion and other processes, it is unclear
which will emerge victorious from the ongoing competition. On the other
hand, thermal car capitalism remains strong, and for the moment, energy
realism continues to tip the scales toward oil, which remains affordable
(until when?) and more efficient in its weight/power ratio. The Western
impression of Transition can also be a delusion when we change scale.
Asia and especially Africa remain continents with low motorization,
consumption and economic growth estimates are high, and capitalists will
locate their factories as close as possible to markets and cheap labor.
Europe risks remaining an industrial desert, whatever the rhetoric about
reindustrialization. Moreover, in France, there is the bias of nuclear
power, which provides the majority of our electricity, but this remains
an exception in the world. How could developing countries provide enough
energy for batteries, not to mention the need to network the territory
with charging stations? But let's keep in mind that these competing
capitalisms are in reality often the same. Total bought SAFT, car
manufacturers don't change, they just diversify their business.
These capitalisms do not escape the current trend, that of
overproduction and the downward trend in the rate of profit. Miles of
parking lots are filling up at ports for cars that cannot find buyers,
supply chains are seizing up with, for example, a war between
manufacturers for delivery trucks - since COVID, there has been a
significant shortage of truck drivers. Assembly lines are overcapacity.
All of this has repercussions, first and foremost, on work: wages,
working conditions, which will continue to deteriorate. This will surely
lead to protests that, hopefully, will gain the upper hand and succeed
in triggering a balance of power in our favor. The automobile industry
remains a key sector of capitalism where working conditions are the
harshest because they are imposed by the mechanics of the assembly line
and a management that wants to exploit every moment of work (hunting for
breaks). This is a sector that is seeing the emergence of strong class
struggles, such as with PSA-Aulnay in 2013 (see the article on the film
"We Are Not Our Parents"). More recently, at the end of 2023, in the
United States, there was a historic strike led by the UAW (Union
Automobile Workers) which obtained significant wage increases (+20%). It
is only through struggles that things can change radically and that
capitalism can be challenged. Certainly in the United States, there was
no questioning of the model, on the contrary, but the space and time of
the strike, of the struggle were there, and can open up perspectives.
We can also highlight the contradictions that rare earth extractivism
can bring to the other side of the world. These are becoming a major
geopolitical issue, as we have seen with Trump's statements on Greenland
or Putin's in Ukraine. The underlying message is the return of
imperialism, less watered down, with mercantilism, also called
"capitalism of finitude" (an expression coined by economist Arnaud
Orain). In the long term, this will recreate tensions and even
conflicts, in which political positions will have to be taken.
More anthropological contradictions are emerging. Electricity and its
batteries distil the myth of omnipotence everywhere for everyone.
Because we have one or more batteries in our pocket, we think we are
free, autonomous, powerful. However, this is a total illusion, because
we are in reality increasingly dependent and enslaved by the
all-electric/computer that governs our daily actions. Conversely, each
individual and their car can be considered as a stock that can be used
when the macro-system needs it. Thus, bidirectional batteries have been
developed in particular by Renault. This is called "V2G", vehicle to
grid (from the vehicle to the network) or "V2H", vehicle to home (from
the vehicle to the home). Basically, it is a system that allows
electricity to be drawn from the batteries when the electricity grid is
underpowered or to stop charging during peak hours, when consumption is
too high.
How to fight against and for, at the same time?
What can be done to oppose this? First, dismantle the discourse on
Transition and develop a critique of it, which we are trying to do on
our scale. Then, build on ongoing struggles, particularly against rare
earth extractivism. In France, battles are taking place over lithium
(see in this issue), over port areas that import materials, and
elsewhere, local opposition must be sustained against this vast global
market. The Kanaks in New Caledonia are partly critical of colonial
nickel extraction. Territorial struggles can also arise around
environmental studies and public debates, provided for by law, which can
be moments of agitation, meetings, and collective organization. Legal
recourse allows us to gain time, but let's not kid ourselves, it is
temporary and insufficient. Especially since laws accelerate the
procedures to allow the establishment of "sustainable businesses." Thus,
the law on the acceleration of renewable energies (February 2023)
provides for "up to 5 years of reduced deadline for a solar photovoltaic
project, up to 2 years of reduced deadline for offshore wind projects"
and grants a "presumption of imperative reason of major public interest"
which authorizes certain construction sites to deviate from the
protection of fauna and flora; it reduces the processing of
environmental authorization applications; and if by chance a prefect
does not grant said authorization - poorly prepared file or manifestly
illegal project - a "Guarantee Fund" will cover the financial losses
linked to the procedure. This should reassure industrialists. Finally,
the so-called "Green Industry" law of October 10, 2023 allows factories
labeled "major national interest" to deviate from the Environmental
Code. To counter this legislative apparatus, the balance of power must
be even stronger and rely on other components, particularly the central
one of labor. For the moment, there is no necessary perspective on the
conditions of workers in gigafactories and the like, because they have
only just opened. But let's count on social struggles that can
contribute to the balance of power against these "lithium golems."
What should we propose instead? This is the other big question in
proposing a counter-model. We must return to the roots of the
environmental struggle of the 1970s, that of the severe criticism of
cars and nuclear power. Cars pollute, they kill, they make our lives
noisy and stressful. But this must go hand in hand with the criticism of
the forms of exploitation linked to cars: the fact of having to take
them to go to work, to do the shopping, to go on vacation, etc. Simply
saying that we need soft mobility is to subscribe to the eco-bourgeois
discourse of a certain privileged urban class while forgetting the
social reality of the proles. The class dimension must be central: fewer
cars, more bikes, it's for everyone or for no one!
Margat, April 2025
https://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4447
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten