EV roadblock - lithium 14

[GregLocock]

During one of those conversations with a guy named Phil Gross, we talked about the approximately 15 million new cars sold in the US each year.
I already knew that 15 million number, so I wasn’t surprised when Phil brought it up. I was surprised, however, when Phil told me that there simply isn’t enough lithium on Earth to keep producing cars at anything like that rate and that North American carmakers would soon be facing, “an existential threat” (his words) as they transition to EVs.

Phil should know. He’s the CEO of Snow Lake Lithium, a hard-rock mining operation up in Snow Lake, Manitoba, Canada, and it is quite literally his job to know (or, at least, try to know) precisely how much lithium is out there … and he’s not terribly optimistic.

“Right now, I can tell you precisely how much lithium is being mined in North America, to the ounce,” he says. “Zero,” he makes an “O” with his hand, driving the point home.

We went on to talk about China and South America and how they didn’t want to export lithium to the US, and the relative merits of hard rock mining vs. extracting lithium from brine solutions, but that’s not what stuck with me.

What did stick was this: no matter how you slice it, or where you look for it, there’s not enough lithium to keep up. If the manufacturers and politicians stick to their EV-only plans

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2022/05/opinion-these-brands-wont-make-it-in-the-us-as-evs/

It takes 7 years to get a lithium mine up and running. I find it hard to believe there is GLOBAL shortage of lithium, I suspect the real issue is that China (and any other producers) would rather export batteries, not raw materials.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

Thanks for besoiling an intelligent conversation with claptrap, ironic.

 

I'm all for clear communication hokie, and I call out BS. Language matters; it is under assault from many sides and it is degrading rapidly.

The politicized delusions and magical thinking presented in many of these threads, proposing we can technologically 'transition' our way out of environmental collapse, is the actual claptrap.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[MJCronin]

BRAVO Ironic !!! .... BRAVO !!!! .... Well said !!!

Language and accurate word usage DOES matter !!!!

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[dik]

That's not clear communication; it's clouding the issue, making it less relevant. I hope I'm wrong, but there are some serious changes that are going to have to be made. No one seems to be addressing the problems, let alone acting on them.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

The problem is that we have decided that the coastal elites losing their beach houses to sea level rise is an existential threat to humanity.

We really should be talking about how to build new, better cities inland and stop worrying about renewable nonsense.

 

[dik]

Tug... you forgot the

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

If the problem is as big as I think it is, there will be huge changes... travel, food production and distribution, droughts, etc. The 'throw away' culture will have to change. It's a matter of seeing what will really be affected.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

We really should be talking about how to build new, better cities inland and stop worrying about renewable nonsense.

You actually made a good point about coastal elites losing their beach houses... in that this issue (anthropogenic global warming) is largely an issue being driven by elites.

However, I would propose a number of reasons why this desire to move away from our current fossil fuel addiction is NOT nonsense at all.
a) There are very solid scientific reasons to believe that the global warming we're seeing caused (at least in part) by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If we continue dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at this rate, then there will eventually be problems. Whether that's this year, 10 years from now or 50 years from now that's debatable. The predicted extent of those problems is also debatable. However, being concerned about the potential for such outcomes is far from "nonsense".

b) Our addiction to fossil fuels that is problematic in other ways as well. It enables some of the worst, most repressive regimes in the world to profit off of us when we would otherwise have very little to do with them economically. Instead we fund their wars and terrorist activities. Every move towards becoming less reliant on foreign oil allows us to move closer to energy independence.... and less fearful of well funded terrorist groups that want to destroy our way of life. As such, the benefits to our national security should not be viewed as "nonsense".

c) Our economies are frequently subject to wild prince disruptions due to our supply on relatively volatile oil markets. So, any actions we can take which make our economy less susceptible to such disruptions should not be viewed as "nonsense".

 

[TugboatEng]

I'm all for stability and polluting less. I don't think our current renewable course is providing us with either.

A better course of action would be to push for replacement of our conventional boiler only power plants with combined cycle. That would phase out dirty coal, decrease gas consumption with higher efficiency, and most of the combined cycle components and materials are sourced from and produced by friendly nations.

What is the life expectancy of a combined cycle plant, anyways? 30-40 years? That's just about the right amount of time for us to implement a proper greener infrastructure before phasing out the combined cycle units.

 

I'd like to ask who these unnamed elites are. Also, how is a coastal elite different from a generic elite?

(But whoever they are I'm sure they are wearing black and are sipping lattés.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[ACtrafficengr]

A few things are missing from this conversation:

1. Even assuming there is enough lithium, cobalt, rare earths, etc., EVs won't reduce emissions enough to solve the problem. Vehicle miles travelled will need to be reduced. great way to do that is give people freedom to do more with land than single family residential tract housing and big box retail. This will take zoning reform and financial regulation changes. It's actually illegal in many parts of the US to build a classic downtown neighborhood, even though they provide big benefits. They are fiscally more productive, healthier, use less energy, etc.

2. CO₂ in the atmosphere isn't the only problem. Dissolved CO₂ in the ocean will also cause problems, and not just to people that enjoy shellfish. Measurable pH changes have already occurred, and, if it continues, can lead to food shortages in coastal communities, more frequent red tides, and possibly methane releases from the sea floor that will cause even more warming.

On the other hand, there is a lot of ingenuity being applied, like a video I watched about the potential of capturing and utilizing the waste heat from data centers.

My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

http://xkcd.com/319/

 

[JoshPlumSE]

A better course of action would be to push for replacement of our conventional boiler only power plants with combined cycle. That would phase out dirty coal, decrease gas consumption with higher efficiency, and most of the combined cycle components and materials are sourced from and produced by friendly nations.

The good news is that this is already happening. We're actually making GREAT progress in this respect. See the graph below:

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Sorry, apparently I forgot how to attach an image. Notice how coal power has dropped in half (actually more) between 2008 and 2020. While natural gas has almost doubled.

Renewables (which I'm assuming are mostly wind and solar) have also doubled. But, that's only possible because our government has been giving them HUGE
numbers of handout to encourage growth in the industry.

The one thing I find troubling is the plateau (maybe even a slight drop) in nuclear power. This is disappointing to me because nuclear is carbon free (once the plants have been built).

 

Notice how coal power has dropped in half (actually more) between 2008 and 2020.

Now add in China and India (got to consider the entire petri dish).

The number of greenbacks (actual, not initially budgeted) required to build nuclear is a very large pile of paper containing a massive amount of carbon.

I CTRL-F'd this entire thread and the word 'conservation' does not appear.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

We can't use that word, it's too triggering to the environmentalists. It sounds too similar to another word.

On the plus side, you could sequester a lot of carbon in that nuclear paperwork.

 

[GregLocock]

EVs are a distraction. The top 18 vehicle owning countries have 1.2 billion vehicles, You could replace every one with an EV and even ignoring the CO2 emitted in manufacturing them, the CO2 emitted per year would be 1.5 billon tonnes, just to charge them up, assuming 3000 kWh per vehicle per year, 10000 miles. That is a reduction from the 5 billion tonnes they'd emit if they were fossil fuelled, but a saving of 3.5 billion tonnes a year out of a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 50 billion tonnes a year, increasing at 1 billion tonnes a year per year doesn't seem much compensation for spending 48 trillion dollars, about half the GDP of the world.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

The engineering disaster is that the automakers built a fleet of cars that easily lasts 30 years. They are desperate to transition to an electric car that requires replacement every 10-12 years as the battery packs fail.

 

Engineers don't design vehicles, they just work out the details of how to make them as cheaply as possible.
Designing vehicles is the job of marketeers and lobbyists.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

Really? Tesla, for example, was brought about by the engineers. Nobody wanted an electric vehicle because they were garbage. Tesla brought a groundbreaking vehicle to market in record time.

This inspired the lobbiests to get behind it because it was new and exciting.

Once invested, the lobbiests mandate the technology.

Then they profit despite unpopularity or damage. It's not very capitalistic.

 

Whatever you say TBE.

It's coming clearer you believe political ideology (or at least the wrong brand of political ideology) is behind every ill, and believe firmly that if only engineers were in charge we would soon solve every problem, after getting rid of the bad 'uns. Every problem can be solved in isolation, but guess what, things and people and systems are a lot messier and interconnected than that.

Here I was thinking Technocracy was a thing of the past...honestly I have no interest in trying to reason with slippery polemicism. But it doesn't matter; our opinions don't alter the fact that the planet will have the final say. And right now the planet is very angry with us.

To sum up, EVs are a distraction that barely moves the survival needle.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."