“We think that’s nuts, as it’s a car and technology our owners would want to buy,” she said, confirming that Ineos would be “working hard” with the government to try to ensure that isn’t the case.
She added: “We need a mix of powertrains. A car with 25% of the emissions of a ICE car: why would we not want that? We will work hard to not see it banned.
“We’re in 43 markets, and not all of them will go to EVs, and all of them have different needs. Not all are as evangelical as the UK.”
Calder also confirmed the decision to introduce the REx version of the Fusilier alongside the EV was a late call, made only a couple of months ago, in response to stalling demand for EVs across the UK and Europe.
“We were swayed by the turn of the tide and buyers voting with their feet,” she said. “We recognise not all buyers want EVs; there’s a use case for them for sure, but we wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up at 25-20% [of the market] rather than 100%.”
Ratcliffe also spoke widely about other fuel types, including hydrogen, biofuels and synthetic fuels.
On hydrogen, Ineos now no longer sees it as a beacon for where the industry will likely end up but still considers it a relevant future part of the road transport mix, while noting huge cost and infrastructure concerns.
“Hydrogen will have a part,” Ratcliffe said. “We don’t know where it will end up, but I think all things will find their place in the world of transport with different solutions for urban, trucks, off-road… There are lots of different solutions that will optimised for a range of different solutions.
“You come back to the economics of production and the infrastructure required [with hydrogen]. In the US, it costs one fifth what it does in Europe to make hydrogen, so in the EU, you will have to pay €500-600 a tank for fuel versus €120-130 a tank in the US.”
That might suggest a wavering in Ineos’s previously stated belief that hydrogen would win out as a fuel of the future of cars, but Ratcliffe maintains that it has relevance for heavy goods vehicles and buses.