4 ms·

The headline is made to sound like: "Oh no, we are running out of cobalt!" Yeah, not really. Just like with "oil reserves", there's a common misconception that

by xigma 8y ago

The headline is made to sound like: "Oh no, we are running out of cobalt!" Yeah, not really. Just like with "oil reserves", there's a common misconception that we'll "run out" when they are depleted. However, "reserves" are just those resources that can be extracted economically at today's prices. When demand increases, prices rise and reserves "magically" increase. That's exactly what will happen here. "Rare-earth materials" aren't actually rare in the sense that precious metals are rare. They're just uncommon compared to other minerals. If prices rise, eventually China will decide to increase exports and other countries that aren't literally warzones (like the DRC) will chime in. So, we have ten years until those batteries will become somewhat more expensive, making research into alternatives more promising. There is no urgency here. Then of course there's the questionable idea that electric motors will replace combustion engines because we're "running out of oil", which is why we supposedly need all these batteries in the first place. My bet is that synthetic fuels will become profitable far earlier.

Reason077 8y ago
> "there's the questionable idea that electric motors will replace combustion engines because we're "running out of oil"" Right. Electric motors will replace combustion engines because they're cheaper to operate, offer better performance, require less maintenance, don't emit toxic pollutants, contribute less CO2 emissions, they're much quieter, and they offer a better driving experience. Sooner or later they'll be cheaper to manufacture, too, due to reduced labour required, component commonality, fewer moving parts, etc.
- xigma 8y ago
  Some questionable assumptions there: - cheaper to operate An enormous amount of electricity would be required to actually replace all combustion engines in just regular cars, plus a lot of investment into infrastructure to charge all these cars. Higher demand, higher prices. - offer better performance Are the best-selling cars today those with the best performance? No, they're the ones offering acceptable performance at the best price. - require less maintenance That's assuming that maintenance cost is a big deciding factor in a car. Cars are assumed to be depreciating assets, when maintenance becomes too expensive they are replaced. There's some argument to be made here for certain vehicles like Taxis with a lot of usage, but the general consumer will not highly value or even accurately estimate maintenance. - don't emit toxic pollutants Most consumers don't put a premium on this. Modern combustion engines don't emit a lot of pollutants anymore, but even then it would take government intervention to force people away from them. - contribute less CO2 emissions Again, most consumers don't put a premium on this, but government intervention could change that. Synthetic fuels of the future may well be carbon neutral though. - they offer a better driving experience ...assuming you're not running out of battery.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    > "An enormous amount of electricity would be required to actually replace all combustion engines in just regular cars" Not as much as you might think. In the UK, for example, electrifying all ground transport would add only on the order of 25-30% to current grid demand. That's similar to the amount that grid demand has declined in the past decade due to energy efficiency, despite population growth. Ofgem, the UK's energy market regulator, recently confirmed that there is enough grid capacity available for widespread adoption of electric vehicles, provided a significant portion of charging happens at off-peak times. > "plus a lot of investment into infrastructure to charge all these cars." Yes, but this is actually pretty cheap compared to the massive infrastructure requirement for H2 or synthetic fuels. With electricity, the production and distribution infrastructure already exists.

by xigma 8y ago

Reason077 8y ago

> "there's the questionable idea that electric motors will replace combustion engines because we're "running out of oil"" Right. Electric motors will replace combustion engines because they're cheaper to operate, offer better performance, require less maintenance, don't emit toxic pollutants, contribute less CO2 emissions, they're much quieter, and they offer a better driving experience. Sooner or later they'll be cheaper to manufacture, too, due to reduced labour required, component commonality, fewer moving parts, etc.

xigma 8y ago
Some questionable assumptions there: - cheaper to operate An enormous amount of electricity would be required to actually replace all combustion engines in just regular cars, plus a lot of investment into infrastructure to charge all these cars. Higher demand, higher prices. - offer better performance Are the best-selling cars today those with the best performance? No, they're the ones offering acceptable performance at the best price. - require less maintenance That's assuming that maintenance cost is a big deciding factor in a car. Cars are assumed to be depreciating assets, when maintenance becomes too expensive they are replaced. There's some argument to be made here for certain vehicles like Taxis with a lot of usage, but the general consumer will not highly value or even accurately estimate maintenance. - don't emit toxic pollutants Most consumers don't put a premium on this. Modern combustion engines don't emit a lot of pollutants anymore, but even then it would take government intervention to force people away from them. - contribute less CO2 emissions Again, most consumers don't put a premium on this, but government intervention could change that. Synthetic fuels of the future may well be carbon neutral though. - they offer a better driving experience ...assuming you're not running out of battery.
- Reason077 8y ago
  > "An enormous amount of electricity would be required to actually replace all combustion engines in just regular cars" Not as much as you might think. In the UK, for example, electrifying all ground transport would add only on the order of 25-30% to current grid demand. That's similar to the amount that grid demand has declined in the past decade due to energy efficiency, despite population growth. Ofgem, the UK's energy market regulator, recently confirmed that there is enough grid capacity available for widespread adoption of electric vehicles, provided a significant portion of charging happens at off-peak times. > "plus a lot of investment into infrastructure to charge all these cars." Yes, but this is actually pretty cheap compared to the massive infrastructure requirement for H2 or synthetic fuels. With electricity, the production and distribution infrastructure already exists.