EV minerals, tell me it isn't true

[ingenieur]

I've heard a ton of arguments against electric vehicles.

But one argument in particular which I hadn't heard before regards the minerals to make the batteries.

The point being, if all known deposits were extracted to make batteries for cars it wouldn't be possible to replace all of the worlds internal combustion engines, not by a long way.

Is it a legitimate obstacle to the EV rollout?

[GT9]

I guess it depends on whether you think today's Li-ion batteries are the endgame and over what period you are measuring 100% replacement of ICEs.

Whichever way you look at it we are talking many decades. Do you think we will still be using Li-Ion at around 250 Wh/kg in 30 years time?

[AlexIT]

If you could post some more information, maybe there would be a point of discussion...

[GT6k]

In the 1970s we were being told that there was only 10 years oil left but it wouldn't matter because there was an ice age coming that would wipe us out.

[kambites]

I think we need some idea about what "minerals" you're talking about!

EVs don't really need very much in the way or rare elements, arguably less than modern internal combustion vehicles. Lithium itself is incredibly abundant in the earth's crust but it's quite evenly spread out it's just a bugger to extract from all but a few sources. The only other things LiFePO batteries need are Iron, Phosphorus and Oxygen all of which are extremely common and easy enough extract.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 27th January 11:21

[TheDeuce]

ingenieur said:

I've heard a ton of arguments against electric vehicles.

But one argument in particular which I hadn't heard before regards the minerals to make the batteries.

The point being, if all known deposits were extracted to make batteries for cars it wouldn't be possible to replace all of the worlds internal combustion engines, not by a long way.

Is it a legitimate obstacle to the EV rollout?

Quite possibly true if looked at in such basic terms.

But in reality pretty much all heavier commercial vehicles will have to remain ICE or head the hydrogen fuel cell route at least until we get new battery tech - the current batteries (li-ion - the ones which require all the exotic materials that are somewhat limited) simply don't have the energy density for much beyond personal cars and light, local use commercial vehicles.

And then even by the time so many as a third of ICE is replaced by BEV's, you're probably around 2030 and the quest for improved battery tech will have moved on by then no doubt - as will people's attitudes to car sharing or using a single car instead of two...

Looking to the future and saying what we rely on 'today' won't be sufficient in 20 years time is just pointless. It entirely ignores that technology and human habits no longer stand still for anything like that length of time.

[Buzz84]

Battery's are constantly being researched, developed or improved. New types are being invented with different chemical compositions, they are trying to improve the efficiency or current batteries to reduce the quantity of rare minerals used per battery for the specified outputs etc

So no its not a certain IMO, needs more time for more development and battery recycling should help too.

[TheDeuce]

Buzz84 said:

Battery's are constantly being researched, developed or improved. New types are being invented with different chemical compositions, they are trying to improve the efficiency or current batteries to reduce the quantity of rare minerals used per battery for the specified outputs etc

So no its not a certain IMO, needs more time for more development and battery recycling should help too.

Yup. And the only battery tech that represents a big shift in density and longevity is solid state - well over 100bn £ now invested in getting it to work.

One of the chief motivators for the tech is specifically the abundance of materials used to create the cells. There's no shortage as there is with lithium battery tech.

The argument that we can't produce enough li-ion cells 'one day' is precisely the argument for seeking new technology, which is very clearly happening and well underway.

[anonymous-user]

I read an interesting article in the NYT the other month about this; the people who previous denied climate change was a thing now, given it is utterly impossible for all but the most cretinous and self deluded moron to deny, have decided to instead say none of the mitigation strategies will work; a new excuse to do nothing and not have your fragile ego challenged by accepting your way of life may not be so wonderful after all.

Greater minds than "Geoff off Facebook" are working on this.

[untakenname]

Polestar have quite an indepth life cycle analysis of the available for their EVs here featuring the materials used.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

Electric mix Break-even (km)
Polestar 2 – global electricity mix / XC40 ICE 112 000

From the 2021 report the breakeven point on the global power grid of a Polestar 2 is 112000km compared to an ICE XC40 so if the car doesn't do that distance before it reaches end of life it's more ecologically friendly to get conventional combustion engine.
Not to mention that the scrapping of EV's batteries is already causing a lot of environmental damage as it's done in Asia using crude techniques https://youtu.be/u-38O6jSyiQ

[TheDeuce]

untakenname said:

Polestar have quite an indepth life cycle analysis of the available for their EVs here featuring the materials used.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

Electric mix Break-even (km)
Polestar 2 – global electricity mix / XC40 ICE 112 000

From the 2021 report the breakeven point on the global power grid of a Polestar 2 is 112000km compared to an ICE XC40 so if the car doesn't do that distance before it reaches end of life it's more ecologically friendly to get conventional combustion engine.
Not to mention that the scrapping of EV's batteries is already causing a lot of environmental damage as it's done in Asia using crude techniques https://youtu.be/u-38O6jSyiQ

Very familiar with that report - and of course the polestar will easily do that sort of mileage before it's end of life - that's only 75k miles, the battery will still be under warranty until way past that! And then the battery will be re-purposed anyway (not scrapped as some currently are), so the retirement and scrapping of the car is not the end of the story.

There's also the question of where environmental damage manifests, not just the overall level damage. It might take the Polestar 120,000km to 'break even' but from day one it's not contributing to pollution in the most densely populated areas of human habitation, IE: villages/towns/cities. So a little less cancer causing contributions for the first 75k miles, and then it breaks even and starts to do some good..

[Chubbyross]

untakenname said:

Polestar have quite an indepth life cycle analysis of the available for their EVs here featuring the materials used.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

Electric mix Break-even (km)
Polestar 2 – global electricity mix / XC40 ICE 112 000

From the 2021 report the breakeven point on the global power grid of a Polestar 2 is 112000km compared to an ICE XC40 so if the car doesn't do that distance before it reaches end of life it's more ecologically friendly to get conventional combustion engine.
Not to mention that the scrapping of EV's batteries is already causing a lot of environmental damage as it's done in Asia using crude techniques https://youtu.be/u-38O6jSyiQ

Thank you for posting that. It looks really interesting. I’ve been arguing with non-petrolheads for ages about the purchasing of lease EVs and renewing every three years. I suspect very few EVs will ever see high mileages when they’re leased for a few years and then scrapped soon after.

[TheDeuce]

Chubbyross said:

untakenname said:

Polestar have quite an indepth life cycle analysis of the available for their EVs here featuring the materials used.

https://www.polestar.com/uk/sustainability/transpa...

Electric mix Break-even (km)
Polestar 2 – global electricity mix / XC40 ICE 112 000

From the 2021 report the breakeven point on the global power grid of a Polestar 2 is 112000km compared to an ICE XC40 so if the car doesn't do that distance before it reaches end of life it's more ecologically friendly to get conventional combustion engine.
Not to mention that the scrapping of EV's batteries is already causing a lot of environmental damage as it's done in Asia using crude techniques https://youtu.be/u-38O6jSyiQ

Thank you for posting that. It looks really interesting. I’ve been arguing with non-petrolheads for ages about the purchasing of lease EVs and renewing every three years. I suspect very few EVs will ever see high mileages when they’re leased for a few years and then scrapped soon after.

1) Why do you think EV drivers aren't also petrol heads?!?

2) What on earth has led you to think EV's are scrapped post lease!? That's not a thing that happens at all. Whoever told you that was testing the limits of gullibility I'm afraid..

[ajap1979]

Haha, why on would they be scrapped a few years after being leased?

Perhaps Polestar just aren't very good at it. VW for instance brought the manufacture of several components in-house at Zwickau, saving several thousand lorries trips a year. Refining and improving the supply chain will see the break even fall dramatically.

[TheDeuce]

ajap1979 said:

Haha, why on would they be scrapped a few years after being leased?

We've had this misunderstanding before on the EV forums I recall.

Some people, amazingly, get confused by the life of the vehicle vs the time a single driver spends with it. So they think that because they've hung on to stbox shed for 14 years that a person that runs a vastly cleaner EV for three years on a lease contributes more to pollution on the basis they only kept the car for three years and then get another.... Because they're too simple to understand that there will be several owners post lease all of which will also enjoy the car for an overall lifespan more than enough to pass the break even point.

It's hard to argue with people that can't understand such a basic premise. By definition, such a person is too stupid to know how wrong they are - it's no use trying to explain it to them.

[Guybrush]

stickleback123 said:

I read an interesting article in the NYT the other month about this; the people who previous denied climate change was a thing now, given it is utterly impossible for all but the most cretinous and self deluded moron to deny, have decided to instead say none of the mitigation strategies will work; a new excuse to do nothing and not have your fragile ego challenged by accepting your way of life may not be so wonderful after all.

Greater minds than "Geoff off Facebook" are working on this.

I think you may be forming your opinion based on an incorrect foundation. Those whom you say "denied climate change" do in fact, agree the climate changes and say it has been changing since the earth was formed. What they disagree with (yes, disagree) is the extent to which humans are making the climate change.

[D4rez]

Just to note that that Polestar report was massively different to the ICCTs analysis. That suggested an aggregate of just over a year to outweigh the production CO2 for BEV and took into account all the petrol supply chain CO2 etc. Versus a used (already existing) ICE it took 4.5 years for the total CO2 emitted to be lower.

[Fastdruid]

ingenieur said:

I've heard a ton of arguments against electric vehicles.

But one argument in particular which I hadn't heard before regards the minerals to make the batteries.

The point being, if all known deposits were extracted to make batteries for cars it wouldn't be possible to replace all of the worlds internal combustion engines, not by a long way.

Is it a legitimate obstacle to the EV rollout?

While I'm not a fan of EV's in their current form as being the replacement for everything I'm pretty sure this is bks.

For example

Wired said:

Research from MIT suggests there's not enough ability to mine and process the material to meet demand. The research suggests that demand could reach 430,000 tonnes in the next decade, which is 1.6 times today's capacity.

Yes...and? It's not saying there isn't enough material, just there isn't enough capacity. Guess what happens when there is more demand for something? The price goes up, more people start making/mining/refining it etc.

Now I do grant that EV's do use a *lot* more resources to make than ICE but that is in the battery and if that can be re-used afterwards (and then ultimately recycled) that's not so big a deal long term. Equally there is very significant amounts of research going on into battery technology, give it another 5 years and we could see an entirely different technology which reduces the quantity or type of minerals used.

[ingenieur]

Guybrush said:

stickleback123 said:

I read an interesting article in the NYT the other month about this; the people who previous denied climate change was a thing now, given it is utterly impossible for all but the most cretinous and self deluded moron to deny, have decided to instead say none of the mitigation strategies will work; a new excuse to do nothing and not have your fragile ego challenged by accepting your way of life may not be so wonderful after all.

Greater minds than "Geoff off Facebook" are working on this.

I think you may be forming your opinion based on an incorrect foundation. Those whom you say "denied climate change" do in fact, agree the climate changes and say it has been changing since the earth was formed. What they disagree with (yes, disagree) is the extent to which humans are making the climate change.

... and that paying money to governments and large corporations will fix it...

[TheDeuce]

D4rez said:

Just to note that that Polestar report was massively different to the ICCTs analysis. That suggested an aggregate of just over a year to outweigh the production CO2 for BEV and took into account all the petrol supply chain CO2 etc. Versus a used (already existing) ICE it took 4.5 years for the total CO2 emitted to be lower.

The problem with all such reports is that to do the job in any depth requires spending some money and being pretty thorough - and that means whoever compiles the report sees value in it and probably has an agenda they want their report to serve in some way...

I personally gave up worrying about things like the exact break even point vs ICE or any other such stat. All I need to know is that overall it's clearly a superior solution, taking in to account green credentials and actually being good as a 'car'! On both counts there is zero doubt in my mind electrification is far superior to ICE, both on a day to day basis as a driver and longer term as a environmental concern. Not that I or I expect most other EV drivers primarily ended up with an EV because they want to save the planet - it's a nice bonus if it helps a tiny bit though