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?

 

[TugboatEng]

EV's are worse than a distraction. Greg's comment intentionally excluded the environmental cost of building so many electric cars.

But the planet doesn't have emotions and engineers are excellent at overcoming problems. You always vaguely allude to a mass human extinction as the solution to climate change when the reality is that climate change, human caused or not, could be be either a boon or a bane for the human race. It's not worth sacrificing ourselves today for the unknown tomorrow. We can adapt and overcome.

A funny observation, my wife has always been heat intolerant. She works in a bank office. Work from home forced her to work in our older single family home in a suburban environment for 2 summers. She quickly learned to live without air conditioning. We need to restrict air conditioning to larger buildings where it's absolutely necessary. Then, perhaps people will recognize the abomination that densification is. A few more pandemics won't hurt, either.

 

[GregLocock]

Perhaps that's a useful number, capital spent per tonne/year of CO2. Then look at nukes, and my pie-in-the-sky simple challenge setup, new acronym PITS. I know this is what a carbon tax encourages.

So, EVs using the current energy mix in those 18 countries cost $14106 to eliminate a tonne of CO2/year. A nuke, at $10B for 1 GW, costs $2950 per tonne of CO2. So EVs are almost 5 times as expensive a way of reducing CO2 as a nuke is. So in the choice between EVs at $14106, nukes at $2950, and PITS at about $9000. Well that sort of agrees with my gut feel.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[GregLocock]

Of course if you replace the fossil fuel with PITS or nukes then EVs look better as well, they come down to about $10000 per tonne per year, but in terms of priority it is pretty clear to me. Incidentally France has a carbon intensity for electricity of just 68 g/kWh, whereas Poland is up at 657.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[Tomfh]

When I was a kid in a high school economics class we talked about how industry transitioned very quickly one whaling was basically outlawed internationally.

Whaling wasn’t outlawed internationally until the 1980s. We’d had crude oil, plastics, and synthetic detergents for 100+ years by then.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

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

Well, being from California I have a different perspective. Do you remember GM's original electric car? The EV-1 in the 1990s. It went from "concept car" to production car mostly because of political pressure from the state of CA which was mandating zero emission cars.

Why didn't it sell? Well, GM refused to sell it. They would only lease it. Those who leased it really liked it. It had a ton of innovation (like brakes that recharged the batteries and such). In general, the people who leased it genuinely liked it.... Ask Ed Begley Jr.!

There was even a documentary created on the subject, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I haven't watched it, so I cannot comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the film.

I'm not sure that the success of Tesla is really about engineering. I think it's about good public relations and good marketing.
a) They saw a demand for electric cars.
b) They looked at the existing supply, and realized they were all crappy looking compact cars that only the most hard core AGW warriors would be willing to drive.
c) The decided to build a car that would appeal to the "status" and "performance" interests of their market. They weren't the only ones. Fisker did this as well. In fact their car LOOKED much better than Tesla's (in my opinion), it just didn't perform as well.
d) Elon Mush did what he always does.... He got a lot of great free publicity. And, he got all kinds of government subsidies / handouts for the rich people who wanted to buy his car for dual purposes (virtue and status signaling).

To sum up: The green lobby (at least in California) has been pushing for electric cars for roughly 30 years. This isn't a new development. Tesla did a good job with their vehicles. But, I have a strong feeling that as the rest of the auto industry develops their electric (and hybrid) vehicles then Tesla is going to fall by the wayside.

 

Let's talk about 'political pressure' and the auto industry.

1) Intense lobbying (a legalized and formalized form of corruption) has significantly watered down CAFE standards over decades, mainly through expanded exemptions and loopholes. Consequently we needlessly increased carbon emissions.

2) General Motors lobbied Washington for 15 years to prevent proven life-saving airbags from being made mandatory, at a cost of just $75 per.

In 2008 an airbag saved my life. Or was it 'political pressure' that saved my life? All I know is that I have never owned a GM and never will.


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

 

[GregLocock]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

In 1974, GM made its ACRS system (which consisted of driver-side airbag, a driver-side knee restraint, a padded lower dashboard and a passenger-side air bag) available as a regular production option (RPO code AR3) in full-sized Cadillac,[35] Buick and Oldsmobile models.
In 1981, Mercedes-Benz introduced the airbag in West Germany as an option on its flagship saloon model, S-Class (W126). In the Mercedes system, the sensors automatically tensioned the seat belts to reduce occupants' motion on impact (now a common feature), and then deployed the airbag on impact. This integrated the seat belts and airbag into a restraint system, rather than the airbag being considered an alternative to the seat belt.

In 1987, the Porsche 944 Turbo became the first car to have driver and passenger airbags as standard equipment. The Porsche 944 and 944S had this as an available option. The same year also had the first airbag in a Japanese car, the Honda Legend.[38]

In 1988, Chrysler became the first United States automaker to fit a driver-side airbag as standard equipment

So yeah, punish the first one.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

What's your point? GM also invented the McPherson strut around 1948, which they then put on the shelf while they watched European carmakers adopt it.

If you are unable to take my statements at face value then we have no basis for discussion.


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

 

[TugboatEng]

Just like every other industry the automotive industry seems to innovate in spurts. Why is this? There are plenty of engineers that can fill a gap. Developing the airbag is one side of the story but having a team innovative and talented enough to conceptualize and develop an airbag simultaneously with the knee restraint and padded dashboard is an anomaly.

 

[BrianPetersen]

The early attempts at airbags weren't successful because the technology and the marketplace weren't ready for them. Widespread adoption 1990s.

Early ABS also wasn't successful because the technology wasn't ready. Now, it's everywhere, and the tech has been taken to new levels as part of stability-program and traction-control systems. Widespread adoption 2000s.

The GM EV1 was partially an experiment and partially a result of California mandating that a certain percentage of new vehicles had to be zero-emissions by a certain date (now long in the past) ... and the technology wasn't ready. That car pre-dated the development and mass production of lithium-based batteries. Lithium-based batteries enabled fast-charging, and high performance electric vehicles, and driving range that is satisfactory for a good segment of the population (even though some of them don't know it or don't accept it yet). That's Tesla.

The battery tech that we have now, is certainly not the be-all and end-all.

Sodium-based battery chemistry exists. Bit less energy content per unit weight/volume than lithium. But if lithium-based batteries are what gets a really thorough recharging infrastructure built, with low-powered AC charging everywhere and DC fast-chargers everywhere you see a petrol station now and more, to the extent that people realise that they don't actually need 1000 km of range (!) ... Maybe we don't need to supply enough lithium for a replacement of every single vehicle on the roads today, and maybe those that do stay with lithium-based battery chemistry, perhaps don't need as much of it.

And yes, I think the GM Hummer EV is an abomination, electric and all.

I have a Chevrolet Bolt on order, awaited after GM sorts out their issues with it, and I'm confident that they will.

Disclaimer, my company has been involved with, and remains involved with, various parts manufacturing projects in the automotive industry, including G2BEV (Bolt) and BT1XX (Hummer/Silverado/Sierra EV).

 

[LionelHutz]

Tesla was just smart using what they had available. They built the drivetrain specifically to be capable of very fast 0-60mph times and they also packed a crap load of batteries into the car so they got long range numbers. There is nothing particularly groundbreaking in doing either of these, but it creates lots of marketing hype which certainly helps sell them.

 

[SnTMan]

Whatever you think about Tesla and Musk I credit him with making electric cars REAL.

My opinion only


The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, he pumped enough money in that he could demonstrate that BEVs are viable using current tech, and don't have to be dull. That's the good bit.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Tesla was just smart using what they had available. They built the drivetrain specifically to be capable of very fast 0-60mph times and they also packed a crap load of batteries into the car so they got long range numbers. There is nothing particularly groundbreaking in doing either of these, but it creates lots of marketing hype which certainly helps sell them.

He also made them LOOK cool. Made them feel cool from the inside. Those are big things for the end consumer. Everyone else's attempts at EVs all looked like concept cars for the a college engineering project. Aerodynamic in a way that was decidedly un-cool. Fine for the nerdiest of who were excited about tech innovation, but nothing that any of our friends would look at and say, "Nice car".

 

[rb1957]

he didn't just throw money at the problem ... that's easy to do. He did it in a with a plan, and a good plan that has seen something new created ... a viable, desirable electric car. He showed that electric cars were viable (maybe marginally viable) with today's technology. Many have now jumped onto that bandwagon and have created enough of an industry (with enough consumer demand) that will improve the technology.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SnTMan]

Now do rocketry

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[rb1957]

yes, what he has accomplished (in rocketry) is IMHO staggering. Of course he didn't do the technical work personally, he "just" created the fertile ground for his ideas to flourish.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

yes, what he has accomplished (in rocketry) is IMHO staggering.

Indeed, and astronomers agree! They are having trouble seeing through the staggering amount of low earth orbit clutter, which EM is doing his best to exacerbate. I would give up 5G cell service in the wilderness if it meant keeping the opportunity to explore the universe through ground-based astronomy (which is most of it).

If a non-celebrity billionaire did some of the things EM has done he would be doing hard time in Sing-Sing. His world-view has its basis in little boy sci-fi comic book fantasies, a characteristic shared by other Silicon Valley 'thought leaders'. He may be a clever businessman but as a human he is malformed.

Libertarianism is a very nice idea on the personal and social level (you can't argue with 'live and let live'), but as a political and economic model it gets very scary very fast. These folks are not the role models we need.

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

 

[Tomfh]

He’s certainly polarising!

 

[Compositepro]

Yes, Musk is positive polarity and IM is negative polarity.