3 ms·

>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 c

by 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.

by ppf 6y ago

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.