4 ms·

The push towards electric cars is an ostensible step in the right direction from an environmental standpoint, but most commentators fail to consider the massive

• Brakenshire 9y ago
  Rare Earth mining can be done safely, it's just China doesn't want to do so. Ultimately the world has to solve global problems, local or national problems have to be left up to individual countries to sort out.
  • stingraycharles 9y ago
    What if they decide to dump the toxic waste into the ocean ? Aren't we then pretty much back to square one ?
    • Brakenshire 9y ago
      Yes, that would be a problem if it was happening. But that is regulated by international agreements, and as far as I know, China is not doing it.
  • johnchristopher 9y ago
    Wasn't there a slogan that went like this: local solutions for a global problem ?
    • babuskov 9y ago
      Think globally, act locally.
  • carlmr 9y ago
    So one question, if China is defacto the sole supplier of rare earths and they don't keep up your standards, will this still be a green revolution?
    • Brakenshire 9y ago
      China is ultimately a global superpower, and its government clearly has wide public support domestically. My hope that I can alter how mining is regulated in China is pretty much nil, that has to be up to the Chinese population to reject their government, to force them into action, or to acquiesce.
  • rawfan 9y ago
    The only rare earths mine in the US was shut down because of environmental problems. After that no owner was profitable producing REE because of environmental standards to keep up. That was until 2007 when China restricted REE exports. Now that China exports again, the current owner is broke once again (maybe it's already sold, I'm not sure). While other industries can/could successfully be pressured to move to sustainable, fair and environmentally conscious production, the Chinese REE production, as a monopoly, just doesn't care.
    • Brakenshire 9y ago
      Yes, it's a problem from our end. I would support some policy mechanisms to support mining in a way which was environmentally sound and reliable.
• AmVess 9y ago
  It's not a step in any direction. You still need to burn fossil fuels to mine the materials needed to produce electric cars, and you still need to burn fossil fuels to manufacture and transport them from point of manufacture to sales. Not to mention, you also need to burn fossil fuels to charge them, at least primarily. It's also worthy of noting that even if we remove all automobiles from the planet, it will do exactly nothing for reducing global warming. All electric cars do is trade one form of pollution for another, and isn't really anything more than a bandaid solution for a gaping chest wound. Indeed, green is the new brown.
  • cycrutchfield 9y ago
    Sorry, unless you back this up with data (that is, numbers), why should anybody believe your assertions?
    • notyourwork 9y ago
      Here is something that can support OPs claim. Car's are still manufactured with oil, all the plastic, the paint, the tires that comprise the vehicle are dependent on oil. A car requires a lot more oil to produce than people understand so until focus on materials is shifted the car production alone is still a problem.
      • brailsafe 9y ago
        Totally valid. It doesn't mean that until that problem is solved we shouldn't solve problems. I'd compare it to an anti gun-control argument I've heard. Roughly it's that some people who want guns enough will be able to get them, so gun control is useless because we can't stop all gun deaths at once. Which if flipped, is sort of saying that having less guns cheaply and easily available with more regulation is a bad thing.
      • afarrell 9y ago
        Aside from the risk of a spill, What is wrong with using oil to produce plastic?
  • 9y ago
• tristanj 9y ago
  Nearly all [Edit: not all, see replies] electric cars use induction motors, not permanent magnet motors. Induction motors only need steel, iron, and copper so they don't contain any neodymium.
  • stedalus 9y ago
    Tesla is the only major manufacturer using induction motors that I know of. Everyone else is using synchronous motors with permanent magnets.
    • carlmr 9y ago
      Tesla is precisely doing it to decrease dependence on China. The synchronous motor is far superior technology efficiency wise. But Tesla is going for stable supply chains as far as possible (which is smart). Synchronous as well as Asynchronous (no magnet) motors are both very durable. We're talking hundreds of thousands, if not a million hours of operation (according to Tesla that's 60,000,000 miles at 60mph). If we don't throw away the motors with every car purchase (which is a big if in today's world of yearly disposable smartphones). Then even a small efficiency advantage should be immensely useful over the life of the motor. IIRC we're talking about 10% more efficiency for synchronous. If you drive it for 1,000,000h and use about 20kW in average operation, that is 20,000,000kWh. 10% would be 2,000,000kWh. That's significant. NYC has a peak demand of 14,500MW (see here: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/09/28/how-much-energy-does-nyc-waste/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/09/28/how-much-energy-does...). So you could power NYC for 8mins at it's peak usage with these lifetime efficiency savings(again it's unrealistic that the motors will actually run that long in cars, but at least the rare earths could be easily recouped when recycled properly). So the motor is one of the places where an initial investment in rare earths, could be paid off easily over the lifetime of the motor. Assuming that motors aren't disposed of. The batteries still require massive amounts of rare-earths though, and they don't have the same durability. I see much more of an environmental disaster coming here.
      • TaylorAlexander 9y ago
        The Tesla Model 3 motor uses permanent magnets unlike the S and X. Another commenter claims rare earths are not needed in battery production.