I'm not anti-ev, but they reduce the symptoms of the problem instead of solving it.

You can't remove the desire for a car, not mine anyway, but you can reduce need. Ability to drive is desired, sitting in traffic is not. Unfortunately reducing need is harder than putting a battery on wheels.

I agree, the answer is fewer cars and driven miles, not just different cars.

I think the personal and work vehicle does have a place in the ideal transport end goal, but our current position crazy.

Cars, vans etc should have replaced the horse and cart, not the entire transport system.

If we do go the atoms route, then the environmental damage from hydro, wind etc, which is justifiable if means not going nuclear may have been for nothing?

Additionally, the UK approach to hydro has favoured small run of river schemes, where larger NOSHEB style schemes deliver more benefit.

This has always been an issue I have had with the push for renewables - peak UK renewable generation is unlikely to meet demand if we are unable to maintain or reduce demand.

If a push for electrification means a significant increase in demand do we need to go all in on nuclear?