14 ms·

Stellantis CEO: There may not be enough raw materials to electrify globe

80 points by clouddrover 4y ago

guerby 4y ago
Wow FUD really has no limit. "Not only the lithium may not be enough, but the concentration of the mining of lithium may create other geopolitical issues" You mean vs fossil fuels? ... Lithium is available about everywhere Legacy auto CEO want to gain time since time running their existing fossil car factories is money to their shareholders but well at some point we have to stop all this which does not help climate change ...
- theshrike79 4y ago
  It's the legacy supply chain that's causing this talk. You've got companies who have made cars for a 100 years. They have supply chains dating back almost as long. It's really hard in a personal, business and political sense to say "sorry value chain, you're redundant" to people and companies your company has been in business for longer than you've been alive. There are whole industries who aren't just needed any more when electric engines become more commonplace. Most of them can pivot to making something else, but some can't or won't.
  - mnky9800n 4y ago
    Some how, I just can't seem to mourn the loss.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      Shareholders certainly don't
  - gadders 4y ago
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair Applies in all sorts of situations.
  - mathstuf 4y ago
    > It's really hard in a personal, business and political sense to say "sorry value chain, you're redundant" to people They seem to have no issue about saying this to employees lately…
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      I don't remember companies ever having an issue with that.
    - pie420 4y ago
      CEO's don't care about employees, but they do care about their CEO buddies who own engine parts manufacturers, and supply chain companies that they are heavily invested in.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Plenty of people with no skin in the game also realize it's far from the green future they are promising...
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  How come Toyota has been saying the same for years now?
  - anthonyskipper 4y ago
    Because they wanted hydrogen, not electric.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles.
      - rbanffy 4y ago
        Just not very practical ones.
      - pjc50 4y ago
        No, they're natural gas vehicles.
        Incipient 4y ago
        They use hydrogen to produce electricity in a fuel cell, so are by definition, electric cars. Unlike natural gas which powers a car by combustion.
        pjc50 4y ago
        The hydrogen comes from natural gas. (It can come from electrolysis, but in practice doesn't)
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        By that accounting many BEVs aren't electric either.
        4y ago
- paganel 4y ago
  > Lithium is available about everywhere Yes, in places like Serbia, very close to Europe. But feel free to tell the Serbs that they should have their ecosystem destroyed so that that Lithium can get dug out. [1] For comparison, living close to an oil-well is much more manageable. Not ideal, but manageable. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853
  - timeon 4y ago
    > Serbia, very close to Europe Very close, since it is inside.
    - paganel 4y ago
      Typo, wanted to write Western Europe, where most probably they'll build most of the battery factories.
  - ajdude 4y ago
    Bear in mind that lithium can be extracted in much more environmentally friendly waves, where brine is extracted, filtered, and pumped back in [1]. I do have to wonder if such a process could ultimately be as efficient - and least invasive -- as an oil well. I am not in the industry, nor do I have any stake in this, but reading that article reminded me of when a town built a expensive and perfectly good nuclear power plant just a vote at the last minute by the local community not to turn it on. (Trying to locate this but Google is failing me- I can find the link later, I think it's currently a museum or used for training now). There is a lot of misinformation circling around with modern nuclear technology, and there is a lot of interest groups in the fossil fuel industry actively lobbying against it. I'm curious if any of these environmental activists have ties to the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54900418 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54900418
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      You are thinking of Shoreham, on Long Island, NY.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Can we please keep to a constructive discussion? It is known that the current drive to battery EVs has a number of issues. He also makes a good point that it may not be pragmatic to focus on a single technology at this point instead of being open and neutral and to see what ends up working best. Production of batteries has indeed issues, from mining to geopolitics. Recycling of batteries also faces issues. More broadly, with the deadlines set by governments, electricity production and required updates to national grids are clearly lagging behind everywhere. These are actual problems are they must be faced, not brushed under the carpet.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - schiffern 4y ago
    >Can we please keep to a constructive discussion? I don't think calling attention to the speaker's unarguable taint and bias is "unproductive." On the contrary, such details are important for a reasoned and skeptical perspective. When FUD is being used (yes, it does happen!), we should call it by its name. >He also makes a good point that it may not be pragmatic to focus on a single technology at this point instead of being open and neutral and to see what ends up working best. I don't see how the EV industry is focusing on a single technology. Battery chemistries can be swapped out in the same cans. Motor technology can be mix-and-match. Even power electronics has several different major technologies. >Production of batteries has indeed issues, from mining to geopolitics. The same can be said for literally all mined and/or energy products. Energy is power (in both senses), so this is just a tautology. >Recycling of batteries also faces issues. That's nothing compared to the "issues" recycling fossil fuels! (See: the e-fuel crowd) Batteries can be infinitely recycled, and the materials get better with time. Current technology recovers over 95% of the raw material, and the output is suitable for turning into new batteries. Unlike most materials it's not 'downcycling' to lower grade material, in fact the impurities improve! > electricity production and required updates to national grids are clearly lagging behind everywhere. This is why you hook EVs to the internet, and use it to monitor the grid while charging and act accordingly. "Move bits not atoms." Incidentally this list makes up the usual constellation of FUD arguments deployed against EVs for (literally) decades by legacy incumbents, so the anti-anti-FUD sentiment rings especially hollow.
- niclo 4y ago
  > Legacy auto CEO want to gain time Stellantis has already been selling hundreds of thousands of BEVs in the last couple of years and changing the entire offer of several brands they own, a process they are gonna complete in a few years, namely 3/4. They also have a strong position on commercial vehicles as well. Their position is everything but weak, considering they are indeed a "legacy automaker".
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I thought Stellantis was known for selling the lowest quality vehicles. Or rather, vehicles with the lowest quality to price ratio.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      The edge between manufacturers is always very, very thin in cases where manufacturers are actually trying to directly compete with each other. But usually they're not. Cadillac and Audi both build performance sedans but they build them for different demographics, taste profiles and usage patterns and it shows. Cadillac has tried to build cars for Audi customers and Audi has tried to build cars for Cadillac customers and they've both mostly flopped and they've gone back to their own things. The marginal new car buyer who flip flops between brands doesn't really care about that stuff. They have specific and varied criteria they're using to choose. Everyone on the upper middle class internet shits on FCA because FCA's financing arm has no qualms about writing low end loans which run results in their cars being (when new) driven by people who on average are lower class and less well off than those of the "nicer" brands and FCA consciously builds cars to the price points those buyers want. This results in the cars generally being more clapped out for a given age/mileage on average than "nicer" brands which is then used to justify the shitting-on in a circular logic sort of way. This phenomena and set of feedback loops isn't specific to cars though. You see it used to justify purchases in all sorts of product classes.
      - llamajams 4y ago
        After a decade in the auto industry, I can confidently say that the difference (in quality) between FCA and others is not marginal. There is a severe lack of sound engineering during development and process control in manufacturing. All OEMs screw up, but FCA just manages to do it consistently.
- seszett 4y ago
  Carlos Tavares has been criticising the switch to electric for years, and regularly calls it in interview "that technology that has been forced on us". He's been spreading FUD on electric all over the French media for a while now. This discourse is the reason I'm not going to buy an electric Peugeot anytime soon even though I've always been satisfied with their ICE cars and the electric 208/308/408 are some of the best looking electric cars today IMO. But I can't buy an electric car if the CEO himself says he doesn't like electric and wouldn't have done it if he wasn't forced to.
  - olabyne 4y ago
    Yeah, it is quite ironic that Tavares is a known EV skeptic, but the e-208 is a best-seller in Europe already ...
  - zemvpferreira 4y ago
    One could also say he's in a very informed position to criticise the (mandatory in EU) switch to EVs from. Who's more of an expert on the subject than the CEO of a major auto group that sells a good portion of both combustion and EV automobiles? (I'm a PHEV proponent myself)
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      His group makes incredibly inefficient EVs. The Jeep Wrangler PHEV gets just 1.5 miles per kWh, compared 3.8 miles per kWh for the Tesla Model Y. Literally we'd need 2.5 times as much lithium to go all electric if we used his company's cars. The Wrangler PHEV is one of the few electric cars that is actually worse than an optimized gas-powered Prius in marginal emissions per electric mile driven (altho as we further decarbonize, this won't be true). Stellantis' electric technology, frankly, sucks. They give PHEVs a bad name (the Volt was awesome). And he has an incentive to not be forthright about it.
      - seszett 4y ago
        > The Jeep Wrangler PHEV gets just 1.5 miles per kWh, compared 3.8 miles per kWh for the Tesla Model Y. I don't know anything about Jeep, but the e308 is supposed to be at... 5 miles per kWh? If I'm correct at converting from 12.7 kwh/100 km.
- endymi0n 4y ago
  Let‘s do the napkin math: - Biggest EV batteries are about a ton - Let‘s even assume they’re all lithium - Lithium from seawater can be produced everywhere worldwide at about 5$ per kilo [1] - That‘s 5k for a powerful battery lasting a decade. - Seawater is as abundand as it gets. -> Okay, this is really pure BS, and the only question remaining is which agenda is behind it [1] https://electrek.co/2021/06/04/scientists-have-cost-effectively-harvested-lithium-from-seawater/ https://electrek.co/2021/06/04/scientists-have-cost-effectiv...
  - quonn 4y ago
    It seems that a typical battery might only need 5-75 kg Lithium. So that would then be < $400 if your computation is correct. So even better. Even if this cost would be on top of existing costs this would still be not prohibitively expensive. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/13/instagram-posts/instagram-post-misleads-about-lithium-mining-and-t/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/13/instagram-...
  - lm28469 4y ago
    That's a lot of "would" and "may" in the article. Battery and lithium breakthrough articles are a dime a dozen
  - Incipient 4y ago
    You misread that. It's $5 of electricity. Nothing about the membrane, how long it lasts, any of the construction and maintenance costs, etc. And that's if that quote on the cost of electricity is remotely correct too. And unless they have any of these facilities under construction, they're not going to contribute to supply issues in the next 3-5 years.
- juujian 4y ago
  Plus one of those shiny new pickup trucks probably uses 20 times the raw material that an electric scooter does. As usual "we don't have enough" for everyone to live like the US "so just accept the injustice while we have it all".
- Incipient 4y ago
  Lithium may be available everywhere, but it doesn't mean we're producing it in a consumable way. We're producing about 130kt of lithium. Assuming 75kg of lithium per car battery, that's about 2mil cars/year. We produce around 60mil cars/year currently. That's not including any other lithium use.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    I wonder how much goes into disposable vape batteries.
  - yread 4y ago
    Multiple mines will come online this year and next (for example Cinovec in EU with ~30kt/year)
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Yup. "Wow, if we use more lithium, we'll need to produce more lithium! This is such an insightful comment and not at all tautological..."
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    75kg?? Where are you getting that figure? Most common figure is around 160 grams of lithium metal per kWh (you can do better, as the theoretical minimum is half that, and some DO do better). Base Model 3 is around 60kWh (giving it about a 250 mile range), so just under 10kg per car, so even your 130kT/year gives us 13 million cars per year. Obviously we're not going to be mining a whole bunch more lithium than we currently use. This is obvious, so saying that if we use more lithium we'll need to mine more lithium is just a tautology and is no useful insight at all!
    - Incipient 4y ago
      That number I had been referencing was incorrectly lithium carbonate. Misquoted on some EV website. My apologies! Definitely a lot less of a gap, but still a huge increase in the entire supply chain needed, very quickly.
- drumhead 4y ago
  What about something like copper for wiring?
- lisasays 4y ago
  Wow FUD really has no limit. It's not FUD, but ironically your hot take (in attempting to dismiss it as FUD) is. Lithium is fairly widely "available", but its extraction and processing both have serious externalities attached. When people talk about limits of lithium availability, that's ultimately what they're referring to. Information about this is widely available. It's definitely not FUD.
hitpointdrew 4y ago
Not only are there not enough resources, our electric grid is nowhere near where it needs to be to remotely support a large shift to EVs. Any ideas that in 5-10 years we will only sell EVs is a grand delusion.
- chrisb 4y ago
  This claim of grid overload is false. See [0] for the UK grid operator's view on this, also includes a few numbers relevant to the US grid. [0] https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
  - 7thaccount 4y ago
    Where did the parent comment mention grid overload?
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      when it said "our electric grid is nowhere near where it needs to be to remotely support a large shift to EVs" without specifying further detail (like "we need more chargers connected to that grid"), the reasonable interpretation is that the grid itself, meaning the means of delivering power to power users (including any installed chargers), has deficiencies preventing it from doing so
  - hitpointdrew 4y ago
    You should probably read more than the headline. 1. This article is specific to the UK, not the US. 2. The article is published by an Electrical company, obviously as PR piece to make it look like they have things under controll. This is not an idependaty study. 3. One the "solutions" to the problem the UK came up with is regulations which state: >The regulations ensure charge points have smart functionality, allowing the charging of an electric vehicle when there is less demand on the grid, or when more renewable electricity is available. The regulations also ensure that charge points meet certain device-level requirements, enabling a minimum level of access, security and information for consumers. In other words, even the grid the UK cannot handle an influx of EV's to combat this they are making the charge points "smart" (i.e. you won't be able to charge your vehicle when you wish only when the "smart" point says demand is low enough). This is hardly a solution. It attempts to "spread" out the charging with these "smart points", the problem is most people work during the day (and are parked somewhere where they cannot charge) and will want to charge at night. This would leave many SOL when they wake up to find their vehicle hasn't charged at all. Hard, fucking, pass. Additionally, EV's are complete non-starter until they can go from 0% charge to full charge in 2 min or less IMO. If am on a road trip and trying to make good time I am not waiting around an hour+ for my vehicle to charge. Until charging is as easy and quick as pumping gas I have no interest in an EV.
martythemaniak 4y ago
Yes, we need a 6 month moratorium on EV production until we understand the issues better. Folks really don't understand (or probably, don't want to understand) the scale of existing fossil fuel infrastructure. In a works full of EVs, total mining will go down.
Paianni 4y ago
There's plenty of lithium around, but mining it is not clean.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Not now, because there is little regulation. If we want to extract it in more environmentally responsible ways, we should enact laws that restrict the ecological impact. All in all, Lithium extraction is better for the environment than oil or coal extraction (if you consider all the carbon in oil and coal are going into the atmosphere).
gquiniou 4y ago
In this case maybe they should think about something more sustainable than private cars.
- favsq 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - RedCondor 4y ago
    Carfascists cause more damage than ecofascists by every measure.
- dageshi 4y ago
  We know what that is, it's self driving cars you rent by the trip uber style. The technology just isn't there yet, but that's the thing that will get rid of a lot of private car ownership eventually.
  - hedora 4y ago
    That will never happen if Stellantis is writing the software. Their software team can’t even reliably control an automatic transmission!
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Yeah car companies are never even gone consider or think about alternatives.
civilized 4y ago
Remember Peak Oil? It has been wrong during the whole industrial period, in which civilization has run on fossil fuels and worked relentlessly to extract more. Now we have CEOs who know only the fossil fuel supply chain announcing Peak Lithium before civilization has even tried to extract and use it at scale. This guy seems well-intentioned, but he doesn't seem to understand what civilizational change looks like.
- NDizzle 4y ago
  Can we mine lithium in national parks and on federal ground in the US yet?
  - hedora 4y ago
    Why would we do that? We can’t clear cut or build condos in those places either, but we still have wood and houses.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Lithium is abundant yes but it's a rare earth metal which doesn't mean it's actually rare but that the ore content is super low. Meaning practically speaking you have to move a whole lot of earth to get a little bit of lithium. This makes a lot of extractions very difficult for ecological reasons.
  - mnw21cam 4y ago
    Lithium is not a rare earth metal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element
    - _hypx 4y ago
      It behaves like one though. It is only found in low concentrations and never in pure form or easily accessible ores.
      - 4y ago
oulipo 4y ago
Well we don't need to replace old cars with new cars, we can share cars, and replace them with bikes and lighter vehicles
- JodieBenitez 4y ago
  Another sensible suggestion that gets downvoted.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  An individual's ability to travel without restrictions is a major factor in their financial independence. Forcing everyone to use fixed transport locks their job prospects and keeps them dependent on corporations and government entities. It makes sense in urban areas, but not suburban nor rural, where forcing people to use public transport just keeps poor people poor.
  - Daishiman 4y ago
    > Forcing everyone to use fixed transport locks their job prospects and keeps them dependent on corporations and government entities. This is a very, very American take where people think they have a God-given right to live in these horrible and extremely inefficient suburbs. Pretty much everywhere else the choice is "build more transit", which is actually not that difficult when there's political will.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    > Forcing everyone to use fixed transport locks their job prospects and keeps them dependent on corporations and government entities. 1. "Fixed transport" can be faster and more convenient to get to places than Individual transport. Subways in Vienna go on a 2-minute cadence and you can reach the entire city quickly and conveniently. Compare that to the hellscape that is "individual travel" in LA, where you're always going to be stuck in traffic and not getting anywhere fast. It's isolating to the point where people from different neighborhoods don't hang out with each other because the transport is so inefficient. My tiny village of 800 people in the east of Austria has trains to both my countries and to two other countries' capitals every half hour. Public transport doesn't need to be shitty. It's just held back by backwards thinking in the US. 2. Cars keep you even more dependent on corporations and government entities. The roads you're driving on? Government. The gas you're buying? Some of the biggest and most evil corporations in the world. The car itself? Big corporations.
xvilka 4y ago
Even if it was true, it could have been alleviated by 1) expanding public transportation 2) electrifying it, or building electrical from the start. Subway, buses, regional trains, trams, and so on.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Mizoguchi 4y ago
"We have right now 1.3 billion cars (that are) internal combustion engine powered on the planet. We need to replace that with clean mobility" Why do we need to replace 1.3 billion engines instead of reducing the need for having them in the first place? What if we reduce mobility by say 20%? Not only less cars of any kind but less infrastructure to build and maintain.
seu 4y ago
> We have right now 1.3 billion cars (that are) internal combustion engine powered on the planet. We need to replace that with clean mobility. If by "clean mobility" he means "more cars", then I'd ask: why? These analyses are based on replacing all current ICE cars 1:1 with equivalent BEV. Why? Smaller personal vehicles, (electric) bicycles, public transport, better train infrastructure, car sharing are all alternatives to having the same number of cars on the roads. > Our societies are losing a lot of great potential by not having a technology-neutral regulations. hahahaha. "technology-neutral regulations"? As long as different technologies have different effects on the world, there is no such thing as "technology-neutral" regulation. You cannot say all cars are equal if your objective is to have clean air and less CO2 emissions.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > If by "clean mobility" he means "more cars", then I'd ask: why? These analyses are based on replacing all current ICE cars 1:1 with equivalent BEV. Why? Smaller personal vehicles, (electric) bicycles, public transport, better train infrastructure, car sharing are all alternatives to having the same number of cars on the roads. I 100% agree with that but I see absolutely no push in that direction, if anything EVs are following the trend and are larger/heavier The long term ecological goals are diametrically opposed to consumerism which is the driving force of the global economy for a long while now. We need people to buy shit, selling a bicycle instead of a 70k$ EV is bad in that regard
- wffurr 4y ago
  A carbon tax would be technologically neutral compared to the patchwork of mandates and such we have now. It would also be substantially more efficient.
pjc50 4y ago
There isn't enough lithium for everyone to have an EV, but there is enough for disposable vape batteries?
lm28469 4y ago
https://www.eurometaux.eu/media/20ad5yza/2022-policymaker-summary-report-final.pdf https://www.eurometaux.eu/media/20ad5yza/2022-policymaker-su... semi related but very interesting
pornel 4y ago
For some perspective: their CEO also complained that they're losing money on EVs. And frankly, their EVs are not good. Their charging speed is half the speed of Hyundai's. Their efficiency is half of Tesla's. Batteries 40% smaller than an MG4 in the same price range. I've driven e208 and DS3, and in both of these the projected range was dropping by nearly 2 miles for every 1 mile driven. I presume they display the range using the marketing number, because the actual one doesn't look good. This company is releasing a FWD-only Jeep built on the same platform as Opel/Vauxhall Corsa-e econobox, without upgrading the drive train. Their website even confuses kW with kWh: https://www.jeep.co.uk/jeep-avenger/electric https://www.jeep.co.uk/jeep-avenger/electric The car's spec sheet shows size of the touch screen, but not the size of the battery (but from the advertised range, it's 46kWh like the rest of them). They're really unprepared and far behind EV-first car makers. I don't expect Stellantis to survive the transition to EVs, and their CEO probably doesn't either.
- mdasen 4y ago
  Yea, it's reminiscent of Toyota's complaints. Tesla, GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Hyundai/Kia, BMW, and Renault/Nissan have put some weight behind electric vehicles as their future. Toyota, Honda, and Stellantis are the large auto companies that haven't invested in EVs as much - and finding themselves as the odd three out in an industry that increasingly sees EVs as its future as countries start putting timelines on how long they'll allow combustion-engine vehicles. Stellantis merged together the 8th and 10th largest auto companies to make the 5th largest and they're staring down a future they haven't invested in. Toyota has been lobbying to stall EVs having bet hard on hydrogen vehicles which have never really gotten off the ground (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/toyota-bet-wrong-on-evs-so-now-its-lobbying-to-slow-the-transition/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/toyota-bet-wrong-on-evs...). It is possible that EVs won't be the future of the auto industry, but I wouldn't bet on that at this point. Most of the major players are moving to EVs and while the transition might seem slow to some people, it's looking somewhat inevitable. Toyota's investment in hydrogen cars hasn't paid off and their reluctance to pivot has put them behind. Stellantis seems to be in a similar position.
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
jillesvangurp 4y ago
This company leader is announcing his company is failing in the market and has some huge supply chain issues with no resolution in sight. Just reading between the lines here. There are two explanations for this announcement: 1) he genuinely believes this. I don't believe he's that naive/uninformed/ignorant. But I can't exclude the possibility. 2) more likely: he's managing expectations for shareholders in a market where other manufacturers are growing at the cost of companies like Stellantis that have a big urgent problem in the form of an expensive legacy production capacity. Which while still profitable is heading for a cliff around 2030-2035 time frame latest but probably a lot sooner in most of their markets. In other words, this is a CEO that is preparing for what is about to be an extended period of regular bad news in the form of unavoidable layoff rounds, plant closures, disappointing quarters, etc. combined with a lot of capital investment that is necessary to stay relevant. All while other companies are breaking records in production volume, profit margins, market expansion, etc. And it's not just Tesla that does that. Stellantis still makes many billions per year of course but if they fail to invest that properly (as opposed to letting share holders get their dividend), they will start having some issues there pretty soon. I don't think they have until 2035 to figure this out. Doing all that while keeping share holders from rebelling is going to be a key challenge.
- schiffern 4y ago
  > 1) he genuinely believes this. I don't believe he's that naive/uninformed/ignorant. But I can't exclude the possibility. The entire story is (literally) openly-admitted propaganda from Stellantis. From the article: > The comments from Tavares came during the Freedom of Mobility Forum, a platform the automaker created alongside its decision to leave the European Automobile Manufacturers Association and to change its approach to public affairs and lobbying. ... The hope through the forum is that the debate from views around the world will help to inform and influence public opinion to which lawmakers ultimately are subject. It links to another article[0] which is even more explicit: > the automaker is emphasizing "public affairs" over "pushing an agenda." > "We came to the conclusion that ... it's better to talk to the people, and if the people change their mind, political leaders will align with the people." I'm no PR genius, but it's not hard to figure out what agenda Stellantis is pushing with this new "not pushing an agenda" agenda... [0] https://archive.is/6XXT8 https://archive.is/6XXT8
frankreyes 4y ago
Yes, there's not enough raw minerals for green tech. Watch any recent Peter Zeihan presentation, goes into some details as well, eg, https://youtu.be/tJvpn98XsHQ https://youtu.be/tJvpn98XsHQ
- hedora 4y ago
  Can you link to any peer reviewed papers that back this statement up? That website is full of charlatans and has poor editorial controls.
electric_mayhem 4y ago
“We’re dead last to the ev game, and mostly make shit vehicles whose main selling point is aggressive marketing and easy financing. Let’s talk about why it’s impossible to succeed to try to distract folks from all the other companies that are actually succeeding.” -their CEO, probably
einpoklum 4y ago
> The CEO of the maker of Jeep SUVs, Ram pickup trucks and other vehicles says he's not sure there will be enough raw materials to replace the existing fleet of fossil fuel-powered vehicles with all-electric vehicles. 1. I don't trust a word someone like that says. 2. There are many alternatives to Lithium batteries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vobMl5ldOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vobMl5ldOs 3. Why would humanity want to _replace_ all those fossil-fueled-powered vehicles? Just get rid of most of them. Combination of mass transit + taxis/cabs (*) + bicycles + walking instead. --- (*) - Like the personal cars people have now, but not parked somewhere 90% of the time but rather ferrying people around all day. So not many necessary, especially with mass transit.
agentultra 4y ago
... but we shouldn't be trying to replace every single ICV with an EV? That seems like a silly goal. We have too many cars. EV's are a stop-gap, a cushion, a buffer. The real goal are livable, productive areas with good public infrastructure that aren't designed around cars. All the infrastructure to support cars is a big part of the problem: concrete! Storm sewer systems! Traffic control! Highways cutting off migratory paths of native fauna! And the side effects of designing cities around cars: noise, auto collisions, pedestrian fatalities! This is more automaker/oil industry FUD.
- hedora 4y ago
  Actually, next generation concrete is one of the more promising carbon sinks. Also, trains also have most of the issues you mentioned, and they have accessibility issues that cars solve. We should be working toward minimizing total ecological impact, and simultaneously maximizing the number of workers our cities can accommodate each day. That means more cars, more bike lanes, high density housing near offices, higher throughput public transportation, and more telecommuting. All of those are equally important. In most parts of the US, cars are extremely overfunded compared to the other stuff in that list.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Wow, so incredibly wrong an almost all counts. Concrete currently is the literal opposite of a carbon sink and this will not change anytime soon. Trains either don't have any of the issues or have them at an incredibly low level. So low that comparing it to car infrastructure its utterly ridiculous to even discuss them. > That means more cars, That makes literally 0 sense. Like actually 0. Cars are the single most inefficient way of transport both in terms of space and energy. Literally anytime you have access to cars you could use the same space for MUCH MUCH more access for buses, metros, trains, bikes or literally anything else. > high density housing near offices Yeah and where are all those cars gone be parked? I guess its either in parking lots, making it low density. Or you have to build hugely expensive underground parking garages. And if you go underground, that money would be better invested in something else.
jackmott42 4y ago
There aren't enough raw materials to 1st world lifestyle the whole globe in any capacity. Serious adjustments will need to be made, or we need major technological breakthroughs. It isn't just a question of fossil fuels lasting forever or there being enough lithium. Almost every resource is under pressure. Drinkable water, fertilizer, copper. Good luck everyone. And no need to explain the economics ideas about how price spurs investment and so on, I know.
- rcme 4y ago
  Both fertilizer and drinkable water can be synthesized from sea water. Our only problem as a species is that we can’t produce enough power cleanly. Fingers crossed for fusion.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Sea water processing has elastic power demands. If we power the grid off renewables, then we’ll barely have enough electricity on calm winter weeks. That implies we’ll have more energy than we can use in the summer or on windy days. Fusion or fission are useful for meeting inelastic demand when there isn’t enough production capacity. We need those too, but not for sea water processing.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Non of that changes the original issue. We are energy limited, we are not limited with anything else.
      - hedora 4y ago
        We are not energy limited. Building new energy production is cheaper and more sustainable than ever.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        What we are actually limited by is the political system of many countries. But going back to the original discussion, its not copper, water, fertilizer or lithium, or oil.
drumhead 4y ago
Really? Who would have thought!?! Mass electrification in the timescale set out by most governments is not really feasible. A mix of technologies including hydrogen, more efficient internal combustion engines and transition over a longer timescale might be more realistic.
aaron695 4y ago
[dead]
phkahler 4y ago
>> calling for a denser EV charging infrastructure that would reduce range anxiety I hate that term "range anxiety". It suggests some kind of psychological issue with the driver when in fact there is a real issue with EVs with a small battery. Stelamtis will save money being late to the party, but they may also have trouble securing volumes if they wait too long.
- hedora 4y ago
  Also, the EV charging infrastructure is already pretty dense. If you have the ability to plug a space heater in, you should be able to trickle charge fast enough for a daily commute. The main issue is that the EV charging stations all have bullshit social networks attached to them, and therefore do not reliably accept credit card payments.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> The main issue is that the EV charging stations all have bullshit social networks attached to them, and therefore do not reliably accept credit card payments. This I totally agree with. Most EV charging stations are owned by middlemen running networks. The end game will be level 3 chargers at every highway rest stop and McDonalds, where they will simply take cash or credit card payment and charge while you eat and use the restroom.
hedora 4y ago
Oh, FFS: There is way more lithium in sea water than we will ever use. The CEO is worried about the geopolitical consequences of concentrating lithium mining. We already fucked up the planet’s water cycle, so we need to build desalination plants. Piggyback lithium production on top of that. Whatever we actually do will make more sense than that. Done.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
This is FUD bullshit from a company that will probably be extinct in a decade because they dragged their feet on EVs. Here's the current economic reality of batteries and EVs: LFP at 200 wh/kg is in mass produciton now, and 230 wh/kg is on the roadmap in 1-2 years. That is a 400 mile range car (because LFP has superior pack density) with no cobalt/nickel. Sodium Ion at 150 wh/kg is in mass production now, and 180-200 is on the roadmap. THAT is a 300+ mile range car with NO LITHIUM. Expected bill of materials will be $40/kilowatt-hour (not sure if that is cell or pack) once they get production really scaled. These achievements are the true revolution in transportation electrification. And with Lithium-Sulfur and Sodium-Sulfur chems in the wings, it's likely that in ten years there is a battery with 2-3x the density with no cobalt, nickel, or lithium needed. ICE drivetrains will be fundamentally economically noncompetitive. Too many parts, too much complexity. An electric car will be a motor or two and a sodium ion / sodium sulfur battery, and maybe half the cost of the stuff that actually moves the car. Quieter, smoother, faster accelerating, charge at home, etc. Since the BMW CEO was canned over sqandering their electrification "lead", all CEOs have been on notice that you have a path to EVs ready or you get shitcanned by the board/investors. All the CEOs from companies that didn't have any plans around this are playing defense. And at this point, the ship has left the port, and you either were on it or probably won't catch up and will either die in bankruptcy or acquired for peanuts. This is because the main phase of EVs will be vertically integrated production like Tesla has. The OEM model of ICEs is probably a solid 20 years away, and the companies that don't have vertical integration plans in active development (you own battery plants to help guarantee supply in particular) are simply not going to survive until a new OEM model appears for EVs. The OEM model, for those that don't know it, is that ICE car makers are largely component integrators from a large umbrella of parts producers. Many of these OEMs sell / partner with many manufacturers. EVs won't be like that. The drivetrain doesn't have a rich array of dozens of OEM companies vying to produce components for your next platform/car. You have to design your own motor, battery pack, and directly invest in your own battery supply (the battery being the most expensive part) to get an economical battary pack for the EV. If you don't have your own vertically integrated battery supply, the company won't have reliable supply (since EVERYONE will want batteries) and you won't get it at competitive cost.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
antisthenes 4y ago
Stellantis is an old auto-manufacturer that collected a ton of less-than-stellar car brands by reputation, probably drowning in their own bureaucracy and cruft. Looking at all their current car offerings, most are overpriced and absolutely none are exciting/innovative. Unless you're a die-hard jeep enthusiast. Maybe. This is a plain answer to justify the fact that their products are bad value at the current price, a company/leadership failure, nothing more.
pie420 4y ago
Horse Company CEO in 1903 declares "THERE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH GASOLINE TO GASIFY THE GLOBE"
malermeister 4y ago
EVs aren't here to save the world. They're here to save the car industry. We need to get rid of cars altogether, electric or not. Public transport and bicycles are the only system that scales.
de6u99er 4y ago
Future mobility concepts, will most likely result in fully autonmous shared vehicles for urban transportation or the last mile. E.g. I usually use my car for about 40 minutes every day commuting between home and work. That's 1/35th of 24h and 1/15th of a 10h eindow. Considering that it would need time to pick up someone else, I'd estimate that one car could serve around 25 clients. Also getting from A to be should be quicker because of 15x less traffic on the road, and AI's (hopefully) not driving like idiots. People will need to get used to not owning their own vehicle.
iancmceachern 4y ago
Gotta get it from space. https://space.mines.edu/ https://space.mines.edu/

80 points by clouddrover 4y ago

Wow FUD really has no limit. "Not only the lithium may not be enough, but the concentration of the mining of lithium may create other geopolitical issues" You mean vs fossil fuels? ... Lithium is available about everywhere Legacy auto CEO want to gain time since time running their existing fossil car factories is money to their shareholders but well at some point we have to stop all this which does not help climate change ...

theshrike79 4y ago
It's the legacy supply chain that's causing this talk. You've got companies who have made cars for a 100 years. They have supply chains dating back almost as long. It's really hard in a personal, business and political sense to say "sorry value chain, you're redundant" to people and companies your company has been in business for longer than you've been alive. There are whole industries who aren't just needed any more when electric engines become more commonplace. Most of them can pivot to making something else, but some can't or won't.
- mnky9800n 4y ago
  Some how, I just can't seem to mourn the loss.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Shareholders certainly don't
- gadders 4y ago
  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair Applies in all sorts of situations.
- mathstuf 4y ago
  > It's really hard in a personal, business and political sense to say "sorry value chain, you're redundant" to people They seem to have no issue about saying this to employees lately…
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    I don't remember companies ever having an issue with that.
  - pie420 4y ago
    CEO's don't care about employees, but they do care about their CEO buddies who own engine parts manufacturers, and supply chain companies that they are heavily invested in.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Plenty of people with no skin in the game also realize it's far from the green future they are promising...
dzhiurgis 4y ago
How come Toyota has been saying the same for years now?
- anthonyskipper 4y ago
  Because they wanted hydrogen, not electric.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      Just not very practical ones.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      No, they're natural gas vehicles.
      - Incipient 4y ago
        They use hydrogen to produce electricity in a fuel cell, so are by definition, electric cars. Unlike natural gas which powers a car by combustion.
        pjc50 4y ago
        The hydrogen comes from natural gas. (It can come from electrolysis, but in practice doesn't)
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        By that accounting many BEVs aren't electric either.
        4y ago
paganel 4y ago
> Lithium is available about everywhere Yes, in places like Serbia, very close to Europe. But feel free to tell the Serbs that they should have their ecosystem destroyed so that that Lithium can get dug out. [1] For comparison, living close to an oil-well is much more manageable. Not ideal, but manageable. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853
- timeon 4y ago
  > Serbia, very close to Europe Very close, since it is inside.
  - paganel 4y ago
    Typo, wanted to write Western Europe, where most probably they'll build most of the battery factories.
- ajdude 4y ago
  Bear in mind that lithium can be extracted in much more environmentally friendly waves, where brine is extracted, filtered, and pumped back in [1]. I do have to wonder if such a process could ultimately be as efficient - and least invasive -- as an oil well. I am not in the industry, nor do I have any stake in this, but reading that article reminded me of when a town built a expensive and perfectly good nuclear power plant just a vote at the last minute by the local community not to turn it on. (Trying to locate this but Google is failing me- I can find the link later, I think it's currently a museum or used for training now). There is a lot of misinformation circling around with modern nuclear technology, and there is a lot of interest groups in the fossil fuel industry actively lobbying against it. I'm curious if any of these environmental activists have ties to the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54900418 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54900418
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    You are thinking of Shoreham, on Long Island, NY.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
Can we please keep to a constructive discussion? It is known that the current drive to battery EVs has a number of issues. He also makes a good point that it may not be pragmatic to focus on a single technology at this point instead of being open and neutral and to see what ends up working best. Production of batteries has indeed issues, from mining to geopolitics. Recycling of batteries also faces issues. More broadly, with the deadlines set by governments, electricity production and required updates to national grids are clearly lagging behind everywhere. These are actual problems are they must be faced, not brushed under the carpet.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- schiffern 4y ago
  >Can we please keep to a constructive discussion? I don't think calling attention to the speaker's unarguable taint and bias is "unproductive." On the contrary, such details are important for a reasoned and skeptical perspective. When FUD is being used (yes, it does happen!), we should call it by its name. >He also makes a good point that it may not be pragmatic to focus on a single technology at this point instead of being open and neutral and to see what ends up working best. I don't see how the EV industry is focusing on a single technology. Battery chemistries can be swapped out in the same cans. Motor technology can be mix-and-match. Even power electronics has several different major technologies. >Production of batteries has indeed issues, from mining to geopolitics. The same can be said for literally all mined and/or energy products. Energy is power (in both senses), so this is just a tautology. >Recycling of batteries also faces issues. That's nothing compared to the "issues" recycling fossil fuels! (See: the e-fuel crowd) Batteries can be infinitely recycled, and the materials get better with time. Current technology recovers over 95% of the raw material, and the output is suitable for turning into new batteries. Unlike most materials it's not 'downcycling' to lower grade material, in fact the impurities improve! > electricity production and required updates to national grids are clearly lagging behind everywhere. This is why you hook EVs to the internet, and use it to monitor the grid while charging and act accordingly. "Move bits not atoms." Incidentally this list makes up the usual constellation of FUD arguments deployed against EVs for (literally) decades by legacy incumbents, so the anti-anti-FUD sentiment rings especially hollow.
niclo 4y ago
> Legacy auto CEO want to gain time Stellantis has already been selling hundreds of thousands of BEVs in the last couple of years and changing the entire offer of several brands they own, a process they are gonna complete in a few years, namely 3/4. They also have a strong position on commercial vehicles as well. Their position is everything but weak, considering they are indeed a "legacy automaker".
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I thought Stellantis was known for selling the lowest quality vehicles. Or rather, vehicles with the lowest quality to price ratio.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    The edge between manufacturers is always very, very thin in cases where manufacturers are actually trying to directly compete with each other. But usually they're not. Cadillac and Audi both build performance sedans but they build them for different demographics, taste profiles and usage patterns and it shows. Cadillac has tried to build cars for Audi customers and Audi has tried to build cars for Cadillac customers and they've both mostly flopped and they've gone back to their own things. The marginal new car buyer who flip flops between brands doesn't really care about that stuff. They have specific and varied criteria they're using to choose. Everyone on the upper middle class internet shits on FCA because FCA's financing arm has no qualms about writing low end loans which run results in their cars being (when new) driven by people who on average are lower class and less well off than those of the "nicer" brands and FCA consciously builds cars to the price points those buyers want. This results in the cars generally being more clapped out for a given age/mileage on average than "nicer" brands which is then used to justify the shitting-on in a circular logic sort of way. This phenomena and set of feedback loops isn't specific to cars though. You see it used to justify purchases in all sorts of product classes.
    - llamajams 4y ago
      After a decade in the auto industry, I can confidently say that the difference (in quality) between FCA and others is not marginal. There is a severe lack of sound engineering during development and process control in manufacturing. All OEMs screw up, but FCA just manages to do it consistently.
seszett 4y ago
Carlos Tavares has been criticising the switch to electric for years, and regularly calls it in interview "that technology that has been forced on us". He's been spreading FUD on electric all over the French media for a while now. This discourse is the reason I'm not going to buy an electric Peugeot anytime soon even though I've always been satisfied with their ICE cars and the electric 208/308/408 are some of the best looking electric cars today IMO. But I can't buy an electric car if the CEO himself says he doesn't like electric and wouldn't have done it if he wasn't forced to.
- olabyne 4y ago
  Yeah, it is quite ironic that Tavares is a known EV skeptic, but the e-208 is a best-seller in Europe already ...
- zemvpferreira 4y ago
  One could also say he's in a very informed position to criticise the (mandatory in EU) switch to EVs from. Who's more of an expert on the subject than the CEO of a major auto group that sells a good portion of both combustion and EV automobiles? (I'm a PHEV proponent myself)
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    His group makes incredibly inefficient EVs. The Jeep Wrangler PHEV gets just 1.5 miles per kWh, compared 3.8 miles per kWh for the Tesla Model Y. Literally we'd need 2.5 times as much lithium to go all electric if we used his company's cars. The Wrangler PHEV is one of the few electric cars that is actually worse than an optimized gas-powered Prius in marginal emissions per electric mile driven (altho as we further decarbonize, this won't be true). Stellantis' electric technology, frankly, sucks. They give PHEVs a bad name (the Volt was awesome). And he has an incentive to not be forthright about it.
    - seszett 4y ago
      > The Jeep Wrangler PHEV gets just 1.5 miles per kWh, compared 3.8 miles per kWh for the Tesla Model Y. I don't know anything about Jeep, but the e308 is supposed to be at... 5 miles per kWh? If I'm correct at converting from 12.7 kwh/100 km.
endymi0n 4y ago
Let‘s do the napkin math: - Biggest EV batteries are about a ton - Let‘s even assume they’re all lithium - Lithium from seawater can be produced everywhere worldwide at about 5$ per kilo [1] - That‘s 5k for a powerful battery lasting a decade. - Seawater is as abundand as it gets. -> Okay, this is really pure BS, and the only question remaining is which agenda is behind it [1] https://electrek.co/2021/06/04/scientists-have-cost-effectively-harvested-lithium-from-seawater/ https://electrek.co/2021/06/04/scientists-have-cost-effectiv...
- quonn 4y ago
  It seems that a typical battery might only need 5-75 kg Lithium. So that would then be < $400 if your computation is correct. So even better. Even if this cost would be on top of existing costs this would still be not prohibitively expensive. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/13/instagram-posts/instagram-post-misleads-about-lithium-mining-and-t/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/13/instagram-...
- lm28469 4y ago
  That's a lot of "would" and "may" in the article. Battery and lithium breakthrough articles are a dime a dozen
- Incipient 4y ago
  You misread that. It's $5 of electricity. Nothing about the membrane, how long it lasts, any of the construction and maintenance costs, etc. And that's if that quote on the cost of electricity is remotely correct too. And unless they have any of these facilities under construction, they're not going to contribute to supply issues in the next 3-5 years.
juujian 4y ago
Plus one of those shiny new pickup trucks probably uses 20 times the raw material that an electric scooter does. As usual "we don't have enough" for everyone to live like the US "so just accept the injustice while we have it all".
Incipient 4y ago
Lithium may be available everywhere, but it doesn't mean we're producing it in a consumable way. We're producing about 130kt of lithium. Assuming 75kg of lithium per car battery, that's about 2mil cars/year. We produce around 60mil cars/year currently. That's not including any other lithium use.
- pjc50 4y ago
  I wonder how much goes into disposable vape batteries.
- yread 4y ago
  Multiple mines will come online this year and next (for example Cinovec in EU with ~30kt/year)
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Yup. "Wow, if we use more lithium, we'll need to produce more lithium! This is such an insightful comment and not at all tautological..."
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  75kg?? Where are you getting that figure? Most common figure is around 160 grams of lithium metal per kWh (you can do better, as the theoretical minimum is half that, and some DO do better). Base Model 3 is around 60kWh (giving it about a 250 mile range), so just under 10kg per car, so even your 130kT/year gives us 13 million cars per year. Obviously we're not going to be mining a whole bunch more lithium than we currently use. This is obvious, so saying that if we use more lithium we'll need to mine more lithium is just a tautology and is no useful insight at all!
  - Incipient 4y ago
    That number I had been referencing was incorrectly lithium carbonate. Misquoted on some EV website. My apologies! Definitely a lot less of a gap, but still a huge increase in the entire supply chain needed, very quickly.
drumhead 4y ago
What about something like copper for wiring?
lisasays 4y ago
Wow FUD really has no limit. It's not FUD, but ironically your hot take (in attempting to dismiss it as FUD) is. Lithium is fairly widely "available", but its extraction and processing both have serious externalities attached. When people talk about limits of lithium availability, that's ultimately what they're referring to. Information about this is widely available. It's definitely not FUD.

hitpointdrew 4y ago

Not only are there not enough resources, our electric grid is nowhere near where it needs to be to remotely support a large shift to EVs. Any ideas that in 5-10 years we will only sell EVs is a grand delusion.

chrisb 4y ago
This claim of grid overload is false. See [0] for the UK grid operator's view on this, also includes a few numbers relevant to the US grid. [0] https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
- 7thaccount 4y ago
  Where did the parent comment mention grid overload?
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    when it said "our electric grid is nowhere near where it needs to be to remotely support a large shift to EVs" without specifying further detail (like "we need more chargers connected to that grid"), the reasonable interpretation is that the grid itself, meaning the means of delivering power to power users (including any installed chargers), has deficiencies preventing it from doing so
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  You should probably read more than the headline. 1. This article is specific to the UK, not the US. 2. The article is published by an Electrical company, obviously as PR piece to make it look like they have things under controll. This is not an idependaty study. 3. One the "solutions" to the problem the UK came up with is regulations which state: >The regulations ensure charge points have smart functionality, allowing the charging of an electric vehicle when there is less demand on the grid, or when more renewable electricity is available. The regulations also ensure that charge points meet certain device-level requirements, enabling a minimum level of access, security and information for consumers. In other words, even the grid the UK cannot handle an influx of EV's to combat this they are making the charge points "smart" (i.e. you won't be able to charge your vehicle when you wish only when the "smart" point says demand is low enough). This is hardly a solution. It attempts to "spread" out the charging with these "smart points", the problem is most people work during the day (and are parked somewhere where they cannot charge) and will want to charge at night. This would leave many SOL when they wake up to find their vehicle hasn't charged at all. Hard, fucking, pass. Additionally, EV's are complete non-starter until they can go from 0% charge to full charge in 2 min or less IMO. If am on a road trip and trying to make good time I am not waiting around an hour+ for my vehicle to charge. Until charging is as easy and quick as pumping gas I have no interest in an EV.

martythemaniak 4y ago

Yes, we need a 6 month moratorium on EV production until we understand the issues better. Folks really don't understand (or probably, don't want to understand) the scale of existing fossil fuel infrastructure. In a works full of EVs, total mining will go down.

Paianni 4y ago

There's plenty of lithium around, but mining it is not clean.

rbanffy 4y ago
Not now, because there is little regulation. If we want to extract it in more environmentally responsible ways, we should enact laws that restrict the ecological impact. All in all, Lithium extraction is better for the environment than oil or coal extraction (if you consider all the carbon in oil and coal are going into the atmosphere).

gquiniou 4y ago

In this case maybe they should think about something more sustainable than private cars.

favsq 4y ago
[flagged]
- RedCondor 4y ago
  Carfascists cause more damage than ecofascists by every measure.
dageshi 4y ago
We know what that is, it's self driving cars you rent by the trip uber style. The technology just isn't there yet, but that's the thing that will get rid of a lot of private car ownership eventually.
- hedora 4y ago
  That will never happen if Stellantis is writing the software. Their software team can’t even reliably control an automatic transmission!
realworldperson 4y ago
[dead]
panick21_ 4y ago
Yeah car companies are never even gone consider or think about alternatives.

civilized 4y ago

Remember Peak Oil? It has been wrong during the whole industrial period, in which civilization has run on fossil fuels and worked relentlessly to extract more. Now we have CEOs who know only the fossil fuel supply chain announcing Peak Lithium before civilization has even tried to extract and use it at scale. This guy seems well-intentioned, but he doesn't seem to understand what civilizational change looks like.

NDizzle 4y ago
Can we mine lithium in national parks and on federal ground in the US yet?
- hedora 4y ago
  Why would we do that? We can’t clear cut or build condos in those places either, but we still have wood and houses.
wkat4242 4y ago
Lithium is abundant yes but it's a rare earth metal which doesn't mean it's actually rare but that the ore content is super low. Meaning practically speaking you have to move a whole lot of earth to get a little bit of lithium. This makes a lot of extractions very difficult for ecological reasons.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  Lithium is not a rare earth metal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element
  - _hypx 4y ago
    It behaves like one though. It is only found in low concentrations and never in pure form or easily accessible ores.
    - 4y ago

oulipo 4y ago

Well we don't need to replace old cars with new cars, we can share cars, and replace them with bikes and lighter vehicles

JodieBenitez 4y ago
Another sensible suggestion that gets downvoted.
koheripbal 4y ago
An individual's ability to travel without restrictions is a major factor in their financial independence. Forcing everyone to use fixed transport locks their job prospects and keeps them dependent on corporations and government entities. It makes sense in urban areas, but not suburban nor rural, where forcing people to use public transport just keeps poor people poor.
- Daishiman 4y ago
  > Forcing everyone to use fixed transport locks their job prospects and keeps them dependent on corporations and government entities. This is a very, very American take where people think they have a God-given right to live in these horrible and extremely inefficient suburbs. Pretty much everywhere else the choice is "build more transit", which is actually not that difficult when there's political will.
- malermeister 4y ago
  > Forcing everyone to use fixed transport locks their job prospects and keeps them dependent on corporations and government entities. 1. "Fixed transport" can be faster and more convenient to get to places than Individual transport. Subways in Vienna go on a 2-minute cadence and you can reach the entire city quickly and conveniently. Compare that to the hellscape that is "individual travel" in LA, where you're always going to be stuck in traffic and not getting anywhere fast. It's isolating to the point where people from different neighborhoods don't hang out with each other because the transport is so inefficient. My tiny village of 800 people in the east of Austria has trains to both my countries and to two other countries' capitals every half hour. Public transport doesn't need to be shitty. It's just held back by backwards thinking in the US. 2. Cars keep you even more dependent on corporations and government entities. The roads you're driving on? Government. The gas you're buying? Some of the biggest and most evil corporations in the world. The car itself? Big corporations.

xvilka 4y ago

Even if it was true, it could have been alleviated by 1) expanding public transportation 2) electrifying it, or building electrical from the start. Subway, buses, regional trains, trams, and so on.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Mizoguchi 4y ago

"We have right now 1.3 billion cars (that are) internal combustion engine powered on the planet. We need to replace that with clean mobility" Why do we need to replace 1.3 billion engines instead of reducing the need for having them in the first place? What if we reduce mobility by say 20%? Not only less cars of any kind but less infrastructure to build and maintain.

seu 4y ago

> We have right now 1.3 billion cars (that are) internal combustion engine powered on the planet. We need to replace that with clean mobility. If by "clean mobility" he means "more cars", then I'd ask: why? These analyses are based on replacing all current ICE cars 1:1 with equivalent BEV. Why? Smaller personal vehicles, (electric) bicycles, public transport, better train infrastructure, car sharing are all alternatives to having the same number of cars on the roads. > Our societies are losing a lot of great potential by not having a technology-neutral regulations. hahahaha. "technology-neutral regulations"? As long as different technologies have different effects on the world, there is no such thing as "technology-neutral" regulation. You cannot say all cars are equal if your objective is to have clean air and less CO2 emissions.

lm28469 4y ago
> If by "clean mobility" he means "more cars", then I'd ask: why? These analyses are based on replacing all current ICE cars 1:1 with equivalent BEV. Why? Smaller personal vehicles, (electric) bicycles, public transport, better train infrastructure, car sharing are all alternatives to having the same number of cars on the roads. I 100% agree with that but I see absolutely no push in that direction, if anything EVs are following the trend and are larger/heavier The long term ecological goals are diametrically opposed to consumerism which is the driving force of the global economy for a long while now. We need people to buy shit, selling a bicycle instead of a 70k$ EV is bad in that regard
wffurr 4y ago
A carbon tax would be technologically neutral compared to the patchwork of mandates and such we have now. It would also be substantially more efficient.

pjc50 4y ago

There isn't enough lithium for everyone to have an EV, but there is enough for disposable vape batteries?

lm28469 4y ago

https://www.eurometaux.eu/media/20ad5yza/2022-policymaker-summary-report-final.pdf https://www.eurometaux.eu/media/20ad5yza/2022-policymaker-su... semi related but very interesting

pornel 4y ago

For some perspective: their CEO also complained that they're losing money on EVs. And frankly, their EVs are not good. Their charging speed is half the speed of Hyundai's. Their efficiency is half of Tesla's. Batteries 40% smaller than an MG4 in the same price range. I've driven e208 and DS3, and in both of these the projected range was dropping by nearly 2 miles for every 1 mile driven. I presume they display the range using the marketing number, because the actual one doesn't look good. This company is releasing a FWD-only Jeep built on the same platform as Opel/Vauxhall Corsa-e econobox, without upgrading the drive train. Their website even confuses kW with kWh: https://www.jeep.co.uk/jeep-avenger/electric https://www.jeep.co.uk/jeep-avenger/electric The car's spec sheet shows size of the touch screen, but not the size of the battery (but from the advertised range, it's 46kWh like the rest of them). They're really unprepared and far behind EV-first car makers. I don't expect Stellantis to survive the transition to EVs, and their CEO probably doesn't either.

mdasen 4y ago
Yea, it's reminiscent of Toyota's complaints. Tesla, GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Hyundai/Kia, BMW, and Renault/Nissan have put some weight behind electric vehicles as their future. Toyota, Honda, and Stellantis are the large auto companies that haven't invested in EVs as much - and finding themselves as the odd three out in an industry that increasingly sees EVs as its future as countries start putting timelines on how long they'll allow combustion-engine vehicles. Stellantis merged together the 8th and 10th largest auto companies to make the 5th largest and they're staring down a future they haven't invested in. Toyota has been lobbying to stall EVs having bet hard on hydrogen vehicles which have never really gotten off the ground (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/toyota-bet-wrong-on-evs-so-now-its-lobbying-to-slow-the-transition/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/toyota-bet-wrong-on-evs...). It is possible that EVs won't be the future of the auto industry, but I wouldn't bet on that at this point. Most of the major players are moving to EVs and while the transition might seem slow to some people, it's looking somewhat inevitable. Toyota's investment in hydrogen cars hasn't paid off and their reluctance to pivot has put them behind. Stellantis seems to be in a similar position.
- _fat_santa 4y ago

jillesvangurp 4y ago

This company leader is announcing his company is failing in the market and has some huge supply chain issues with no resolution in sight. Just reading between the lines here. There are two explanations for this announcement: 1) he genuinely believes this. I don't believe he's that naive/uninformed/ignorant. But I can't exclude the possibility. 2) more likely: he's managing expectations for shareholders in a market where other manufacturers are growing at the cost of companies like Stellantis that have a big urgent problem in the form of an expensive legacy production capacity. Which while still profitable is heading for a cliff around 2030-2035 time frame latest but probably a lot sooner in most of their markets. In other words, this is a CEO that is preparing for what is about to be an extended period of regular bad news in the form of unavoidable layoff rounds, plant closures, disappointing quarters, etc. combined with a lot of capital investment that is necessary to stay relevant. All while other companies are breaking records in production volume, profit margins, market expansion, etc. And it's not just Tesla that does that. Stellantis still makes many billions per year of course but if they fail to invest that properly (as opposed to letting share holders get their dividend), they will start having some issues there pretty soon. I don't think they have until 2035 to figure this out. Doing all that while keeping share holders from rebelling is going to be a key challenge.

schiffern 4y ago
> 1) he genuinely believes this. I don't believe he's that naive/uninformed/ignorant. But I can't exclude the possibility. The entire story is (literally) openly-admitted propaganda from Stellantis. From the article: > The comments from Tavares came during the Freedom of Mobility Forum, a platform the automaker created alongside its decision to leave the European Automobile Manufacturers Association and to change its approach to public affairs and lobbying. ... The hope through the forum is that the debate from views around the world will help to inform and influence public opinion to which lawmakers ultimately are subject. It links to another article[0] which is even more explicit: > the automaker is emphasizing "public affairs" over "pushing an agenda." > "We came to the conclusion that ... it's better to talk to the people, and if the people change their mind, political leaders will align with the people." I'm no PR genius, but it's not hard to figure out what agenda Stellantis is pushing with this new "not pushing an agenda" agenda... [0] https://archive.is/6XXT8 https://archive.is/6XXT8

frankreyes 4y ago

Yes, there's not enough raw minerals for green tech. Watch any recent Peter Zeihan presentation, goes into some details as well, eg, https://youtu.be/tJvpn98XsHQ https://youtu.be/tJvpn98XsHQ

hedora 4y ago
Can you link to any peer reviewed papers that back this statement up? That website is full of charlatans and has poor editorial controls.

electric_mayhem 4y ago

“We’re dead last to the ev game, and mostly make shit vehicles whose main selling point is aggressive marketing and easy financing. Let’s talk about why it’s impossible to succeed to try to distract folks from all the other companies that are actually succeeding.” -their CEO, probably

einpoklum 4y ago

> The CEO of the maker of Jeep SUVs, Ram pickup trucks and other vehicles says he's not sure there will be enough raw materials to replace the existing fleet of fossil fuel-powered vehicles with all-electric vehicles. 1. I don't trust a word someone like that says. 2. There are many alternatives to Lithium batteries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vobMl5ldOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vobMl5ldOs 3. Why would humanity want to _replace_ all those fossil-fueled-powered vehicles? Just get rid of most of them. Combination of mass transit + taxis/cabs (*) + bicycles + walking instead. --- (*) - Like the personal cars people have now, but not parked somewhere 90% of the time but rather ferrying people around all day. So not many necessary, especially with mass transit.

agentultra 4y ago

... but we shouldn't be trying to replace every single ICV with an EV? That seems like a silly goal. We have too many cars. EV's are a stop-gap, a cushion, a buffer. The real goal are livable, productive areas with good public infrastructure that aren't designed around cars. All the infrastructure to support cars is a big part of the problem: concrete! Storm sewer systems! Traffic control! Highways cutting off migratory paths of native fauna! And the side effects of designing cities around cars: noise, auto collisions, pedestrian fatalities! This is more automaker/oil industry FUD.

hedora 4y ago
Actually, next generation concrete is one of the more promising carbon sinks. Also, trains also have most of the issues you mentioned, and they have accessibility issues that cars solve. We should be working toward minimizing total ecological impact, and simultaneously maximizing the number of workers our cities can accommodate each day. That means more cars, more bike lanes, high density housing near offices, higher throughput public transportation, and more telecommuting. All of those are equally important. In most parts of the US, cars are extremely overfunded compared to the other stuff in that list.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Wow, so incredibly wrong an almost all counts. Concrete currently is the literal opposite of a carbon sink and this will not change anytime soon. Trains either don't have any of the issues or have them at an incredibly low level. So low that comparing it to car infrastructure its utterly ridiculous to even discuss them. > That means more cars, That makes literally 0 sense. Like actually 0. Cars are the single most inefficient way of transport both in terms of space and energy. Literally anytime you have access to cars you could use the same space for MUCH MUCH more access for buses, metros, trains, bikes or literally anything else. > high density housing near offices Yeah and where are all those cars gone be parked? I guess its either in parking lots, making it low density. Or you have to build hugely expensive underground parking garages. And if you go underground, that money would be better invested in something else.

jackmott42 4y ago

There aren't enough raw materials to 1st world lifestyle the whole globe in any capacity. Serious adjustments will need to be made, or we need major technological breakthroughs. It isn't just a question of fossil fuels lasting forever or there being enough lithium. Almost every resource is under pressure. Drinkable water, fertilizer, copper. Good luck everyone. And no need to explain the economics ideas about how price spurs investment and so on, I know.

rcme 4y ago
Both fertilizer and drinkable water can be synthesized from sea water. Our only problem as a species is that we can’t produce enough power cleanly. Fingers crossed for fusion.
- hedora 4y ago
  Sea water processing has elastic power demands. If we power the grid off renewables, then we’ll barely have enough electricity on calm winter weeks. That implies we’ll have more energy than we can use in the summer or on windy days. Fusion or fission are useful for meeting inelastic demand when there isn’t enough production capacity. We need those too, but not for sea water processing.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Non of that changes the original issue. We are energy limited, we are not limited with anything else.
    - hedora 4y ago
      We are not energy limited. Building new energy production is cheaper and more sustainable than ever.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        What we are actually limited by is the political system of many countries. But going back to the original discussion, its not copper, water, fertilizer or lithium, or oil.

drumhead 4y ago

Really? Who would have thought!?! Mass electrification in the timescale set out by most governments is not really feasible. A mix of technologies including hydrogen, more efficient internal combustion engines and transition over a longer timescale might be more realistic.

aaron695 4y ago

[dead]

phkahler 4y ago

>> calling for a denser EV charging infrastructure that would reduce range anxiety I hate that term "range anxiety". It suggests some kind of psychological issue with the driver when in fact there is a real issue with EVs with a small battery. Stelamtis will save money being late to the party, but they may also have trouble securing volumes if they wait too long.

hedora 4y ago
Also, the EV charging infrastructure is already pretty dense. If you have the ability to plug a space heater in, you should be able to trickle charge fast enough for a daily commute. The main issue is that the EV charging stations all have bullshit social networks attached to them, and therefore do not reliably accept credit card payments.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> The main issue is that the EV charging stations all have bullshit social networks attached to them, and therefore do not reliably accept credit card payments. This I totally agree with. Most EV charging stations are owned by middlemen running networks. The end game will be level 3 chargers at every highway rest stop and McDonalds, where they will simply take cash or credit card payment and charge while you eat and use the restroom.

hedora 4y ago

Oh, FFS: There is way more lithium in sea water than we will ever use. The CEO is worried about the geopolitical consequences of concentrating lithium mining. We already fucked up the planet’s water cycle, so we need to build desalination plants. Piggyback lithium production on top of that. Whatever we actually do will make more sense than that. Done.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

This is FUD bullshit from a company that will probably be extinct in a decade because they dragged their feet on EVs. Here's the current economic reality of batteries and EVs: LFP at 200 wh/kg is in mass produciton now, and 230 wh/kg is on the roadmap in 1-2 years. That is a 400 mile range car (because LFP has superior pack density) with no cobalt/nickel. Sodium Ion at 150 wh/kg is in mass production now, and 180-200 is on the roadmap. THAT is a 300+ mile range car with NO LITHIUM. Expected bill of materials will be $40/kilowatt-hour (not sure if that is cell or pack) once they get production really scaled. These achievements are the true revolution in transportation electrification. And with Lithium-Sulfur and Sodium-Sulfur chems in the wings, it's likely that in ten years there is a battery with 2-3x the density with no cobalt, nickel, or lithium needed. ICE drivetrains will be fundamentally economically noncompetitive. Too many parts, too much complexity. An electric car will be a motor or two and a sodium ion / sodium sulfur battery, and maybe half the cost of the stuff that actually moves the car. Quieter, smoother, faster accelerating, charge at home, etc. Since the BMW CEO was canned over sqandering their electrification "lead", all CEOs have been on notice that you have a path to EVs ready or you get shitcanned by the board/investors. All the CEOs from companies that didn't have any plans around this are playing defense. And at this point, the ship has left the port, and you either were on it or probably won't catch up and will either die in bankruptcy or acquired for peanuts. This is because the main phase of EVs will be vertically integrated production like Tesla has. The OEM model of ICEs is probably a solid 20 years away, and the companies that don't have vertical integration plans in active development (you own battery plants to help guarantee supply in particular) are simply not going to survive until a new OEM model appears for EVs. The OEM model, for those that don't know it, is that ICE car makers are largely component integrators from a large umbrella of parts producers. Many of these OEMs sell / partner with many manufacturers. EVs won't be like that. The drivetrain doesn't have a rich array of dozens of OEM companies vying to produce components for your next platform/car. You have to design your own motor, battery pack, and directly invest in your own battery supply (the battery being the most expensive part) to get an economical battary pack for the EV. If you don't have your own vertically integrated battery supply, the company won't have reliable supply (since EVERYONE will want batteries) and you won't get it at competitive cost.

dzhiurgis 4y ago

antisthenes 4y ago

Stellantis is an old auto-manufacturer that collected a ton of less-than-stellar car brands by reputation, probably drowning in their own bureaucracy and cruft. Looking at all their current car offerings, most are overpriced and absolutely none are exciting/innovative. Unless you're a die-hard jeep enthusiast. Maybe. This is a plain answer to justify the fact that their products are bad value at the current price, a company/leadership failure, nothing more.

pie420 4y ago

Horse Company CEO in 1903 declares "THERE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH GASOLINE TO GASIFY THE GLOBE"

malermeister 4y ago

EVs aren't here to save the world. They're here to save the car industry. We need to get rid of cars altogether, electric or not. Public transport and bicycles are the only system that scales.

de6u99er 4y ago

Future mobility concepts, will most likely result in fully autonmous shared vehicles for urban transportation or the last mile. E.g. I usually use my car for about 40 minutes every day commuting between home and work. That's 1/35th of 24h and 1/15th of a 10h eindow. Considering that it would need time to pick up someone else, I'd estimate that one car could serve around 25 clients. Also getting from A to be should be quicker because of 15x less traffic on the road, and AI's (hopefully) not driving like idiots. People will need to get used to not owning their own vehicle.

iancmceachern 4y ago

Gotta get it from space. https://space.mines.edu/ https://space.mines.edu/