3 ms·

The Dirty Secrets of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles

12 points by jonbaer 6y ago

vixen99 6y ago
Summary: 'it doesn't compute!' Quote from the article: "if we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: about twice the annual global production of cobalt; three quarters of the world’s production lithium carbonate; nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and more than half the world’s production of copper in 2018. "
- lazyjones 6y ago
  So, we supposedly need twice the annual global production of cobalt to replace all of the UK fleet, but nobody seriously expects this to happen within a year. Average age of cars in Europe is somewhere between 7 and 9 years and it takes 10-15 years at least to replace the whole vehicle fleet unless you want the government to give away cars for free. Phony, sensationalisy calculations like you'd expect from a tabloid.
  - ppf 6y ago
    >Phony, sensationalisy calculations like you'd expect from a tabloid. I don't think it's so bad - it definitely gives some sense of scale. The UK is just one country - even if you spread replacement over 15 years, there's still the rest of the world to consider. It also infers a second point, that is, there will be nothing left (unless mineral extraction is massively increased) to construct the various renewable energy systems needed to make this "sustainable", or in fact, make anything else at all but EVs. (I put "sustainable" in quotes, because in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing sustainable about dedicating the entire world's mineral production for many years to personal transport).
    - lazyjones 6y ago
      > it definitely gives some sense of scale. It clearly attempts to give a bad sense of it. > It also infers a second point, that is, there will be nothing left (unless mineral extraction is massively increased) to construct the various renewable energy systems needed to make this "sustainable" Mineral extraction increases all the time and so does recycling. Cobalt extraction in particular doubled in the last 10 years and Cobalt use in EV is decreasing steadily. The article just tries to make something easily feasible look futile.
      - ppf 6y ago
        >The article just tries to make something easily feasible look futile. Assuming we still need minerals for all the existing stuff we use, then we have to approximately double that just to manufacture enough EVs to replace cars in Europe, and probably quadruple it to cover Europe and the US. I have no idea how much would be needed to manufacture the wind turbines, hydroelectric generators, solar panels, etc, but I would assume it's about the same order of magnitude. So, we are looking at needing nearly 10x the annual production of the minerals mentioned, just to supply Europe and the US with EVs over the next 15 years. I don't see how you can call that feasible. I also don't understand why boosting mineral extraction is so casually mentioned - I suppose externalizing pollution is one of the main benefits of EVs. Cobalt mining in particular is no joke.
youngtaff 6y ago
Seems increasingly clear that we need far more mass transit solutions rather than everyone owning a car
- ppf 6y ago
  Absolutely. The "unsustainable" part of car ownership is not where the energy comes from.
iNerdier 6y ago
While many of the points in the article have some truth to them many are misleading or outright avoid direct comparison. The most telling point however is at the end: ‘I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years.’
imtringued 6y ago
The article is way too "optimistic" and uses that to fuel pessimism. If the UK suddenly replaced all cars with EVs then the electric gird would be lagging behind which drags down EVs more than necessary. If you give the grid time to reduce its carbon intensity then EVs will reduce emissions by significantly more than 25%. The article also makes a dishonest comparison using coal power. The UK barely has any coal power. You can't pretend to only look at the UK and then use some fictional worst case that doesn't exist inside it. There are also some unknown aspects that cannot be predicted. If all cars in the UK were EVs then it would be possible to do demand side management of power where EVs primarily charge when renewables are available. There could be significantly less curtailment of renewables. The resource intensity of EVs is definitively an area that needs improvement. Cobalt free batteries need to become the standard. Alternatives to copper based motors need to be found such as aluminum based induction motors (less efficient but more plentiful). I'm not really seeing the problem with Lithium though. It's kinda like worrying in 1900 how we are going to produce 35 billion barrels of oil per year. The reason why production of lithium is constrained is that there is basically no demand for it right now.

12 points by jonbaer 6y ago

Summary: 'it doesn't compute!' Quote from the article: "if we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: about twice the annual global production of cobalt; three quarters of the world’s production lithium carbonate; nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and more than half the world’s production of copper in 2018. "

lazyjones 6y ago
So, we supposedly need twice the annual global production of cobalt to replace all of the UK fleet, but nobody seriously expects this to happen within a year. Average age of cars in Europe is somewhere between 7 and 9 years and it takes 10-15 years at least to replace the whole vehicle fleet unless you want the government to give away cars for free. Phony, sensationalisy calculations like you'd expect from a tabloid.
- ppf 6y ago
  >Phony, sensationalisy calculations like you'd expect from a tabloid. I don't think it's so bad - it definitely gives some sense of scale. The UK is just one country - even if you spread replacement over 15 years, there's still the rest of the world to consider. It also infers a second point, that is, there will be nothing left (unless mineral extraction is massively increased) to construct the various renewable energy systems needed to make this "sustainable", or in fact, make anything else at all but EVs. (I put "sustainable" in quotes, because in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing sustainable about dedicating the entire world's mineral production for many years to personal transport).
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    > it definitely gives some sense of scale. It clearly attempts to give a bad sense of it. > It also infers a second point, that is, there will be nothing left (unless mineral extraction is massively increased) to construct the various renewable energy systems needed to make this "sustainable" Mineral extraction increases all the time and so does recycling. Cobalt extraction in particular doubled in the last 10 years and Cobalt use in EV is decreasing steadily. The article just tries to make something easily feasible look futile.
    - ppf 6y ago
      >The article just tries to make something easily feasible look futile. Assuming we still need minerals for all the existing stuff we use, then we have to approximately double that just to manufacture enough EVs to replace cars in Europe, and probably quadruple it to cover Europe and the US. I have no idea how much would be needed to manufacture the wind turbines, hydroelectric generators, solar panels, etc, but I would assume it's about the same order of magnitude. So, we are looking at needing nearly 10x the annual production of the minerals mentioned, just to supply Europe and the US with EVs over the next 15 years. I don't see how you can call that feasible. I also don't understand why boosting mineral extraction is so casually mentioned - I suppose externalizing pollution is one of the main benefits of EVs. Cobalt mining in particular is no joke.

youngtaff 6y ago

Seems increasingly clear that we need far more mass transit solutions rather than everyone owning a car

ppf 6y ago
Absolutely. The "unsustainable" part of car ownership is not where the energy comes from.

iNerdier 6y ago

While many of the points in the article have some truth to them many are misleading or outright avoid direct comparison. The most telling point however is at the end: ‘I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years.’

imtringued 6y ago

The article is way too "optimistic" and uses that to fuel pessimism. If the UK suddenly replaced all cars with EVs then the electric gird would be lagging behind which drags down EVs more than necessary. If you give the grid time to reduce its carbon intensity then EVs will reduce emissions by significantly more than 25%. The article also makes a dishonest comparison using coal power. The UK barely has any coal power. You can't pretend to only look at the UK and then use some fictional worst case that doesn't exist inside it. There are also some unknown aspects that cannot be predicted. If all cars in the UK were EVs then it would be possible to do demand side management of power where EVs primarily charge when renewables are available. There could be significantly less curtailment of renewables. The resource intensity of EVs is definitively an area that needs improvement. Cobalt free batteries need to become the standard. Alternatives to copper based motors need to be found such as aluminum based induction motors (less efficient but more plentiful). I'm not really seeing the problem with Lithium though. It's kinda like worrying in 1900 how we are going to produce 35 billion barrels of oil per year. The reason why production of lithium is constrained is that there is basically no demand for it right now.