US California to ban new gas cars by 2035

SapphireLightning said:
:( electric cars are the wrong path. There isn't enough lithium nor other requisite metals to make enough batteries to replace the needed number of vehicles. On top of that, those metals are horrible for the environment, both during extraction and disposal. We really need to go to hydrogen storage with hydrogen combustion. Iron, carbon, aluminum, all abundant and completely recyclable. Plus some biodegradable plant plastics for seals and what not. With those you can make everything from the power plant of a car to the very electrodes (carbon) used to electrolysis the water. Just power the hydrogen production and storage with solar, wind, other renewables... No nasty batteries needed. And no need to cross your fingers on John B Goodenough's newest battery tech.
Click to expand...
Don't agree with this. So, first of all, I should concede that it is true that a hydrogen vehicle powered by hydrogen produced from electrolysis is cleaner than an electric vehicle overall probably because of the impact of production of batteries. Therefore, if everyone in the world was determined to make the most ethical car imaginable regardless of cost, we probably would go down the hydrogen route.

However, at the moment most hydrogen is actually produced from fossil fuels and electricity from electrolysis using renewable energy is currently four times more expensive.

Also, hydrogen cars in terms of infrastructure and technology are way, way behind. For the foreseeable future, it is only electric cars or petrol/diesel cars, therefore I think we should support electric cars as by far the least bad option of the three. In reality, opposing electric cars leads to more petrol and diesel car sales at the moment, and therefore more climate change and pollution. In fact, promoting hydrogen cars is actually a preferred tactic of oil companies presumably because they know it isn't going to happen for now and it's therefore a way to indirectly get more petrol car sales made while pretending to advocate for clean hydrogen.
 
SapphireLightning said:
:( electric cars are the wrong path. There isn't enough lithium nor other requisite metals to make enough batteries to replace the needed number of vehicles. On top of that, those metals are horrible for the environment, both during extraction and disposal. We really need to go to hydrogen storage with hydrogen combustion. Iron, carbon, aluminum, all abundant and completely recyclable. Plus some biodegradable plant plastics for seals and what not. With those you can make everything from the power plant of a car to the very electrodes (carbon) used to electrolysis the water. Just power the hydrogen production and storage with solar, wind, other renewables... No nasty batteries needed. And no need to cross your fingers on John B Goodenough's newest battery tech.
Click to expand...

.
Solar panels require the mining of aluminum, tin, copper, boron and phosphorous.

Some kind of quantitative comparison is needed.

I generally agree with what you're saying - I'm just trying get to the core of this.
.
 
Last edited:
There is something about electric cars that always seems to lead to a robust discussion!

If people are going to say “I have an electric car now, but long term I think hydrogen might be better” then great but in reality most of the people worried that the lithium might run out in 40 years are driving around in a petrol or diesel vehicle now and somehow just looking for an argument not to get rid of their current vehicle. To do that, you will need to make an argument about the cars that are on sale today, not an argument that might be relevant in 40 years.

David’s analysis doesn’t factor in:
  • Less lithium per car as battery efficiency improves.
  • New types of batteries without lithium.
  • New discoveries of lithium.
  • New ways to extract it lithium being discovered.
  • Recyling of lithium from batteries.
People who are arguing that lithium is going to run out are like people in the 1800s saying “well, petrol cars for the whole world is never going to happen, because there is not enough oil in the two oil wells discovered in Texas so far, and those are the only known wells.”

If anyone watched Tesla’s battery day, you would have heard Elon Musk talking about how you can get lithium by just going into the desert near his factory and just pouring water into the ground until it bubbles up. That is more or less what he said a bit tongue in cheek and exaggerated I imagine. But still: they are obviously not concerned about it.

I mean they have been talking about peak oil since forever. It never happens. I can’t think of a single type of product in the whole history of technology and civilization that humans had to stop making because an element ran out. Has that ever happened? Can anyone name one? You just find a way to make it without that element, or discover more of that element.

The lithium shortage is really just a myth. The cobalt shortage argument is a bit better, but you can make electric cars quite easily without cobalt.
 
Jamie in Chile said:
David’s analysis doesn’t factor in:
  • Less lithium per car as battery efficiency improves.
  • New types of batteries without lithium.
  • New discoveries of lithium.
  • New ways to extract it lithium being discovered.
  • Recyling of lithium from batteries.
Click to expand...

You're right. I edited my post to consider the worldwide lithium reserves. It looks like we have enough lithium to build billions of electric cars.
 
Ok, I think the premise of my argument got missed. Also, the math on resource use and environmental damage per KW/h or Mile/KM based on the disparity in how much of these rare materials are needed per type of auto and how often parts need replacing........ ........ .......

Here goes:

1. The premise was that we should start to focus on not just renewable energy, but materials that are abundant and infinitely renewable. Environmental destruction kills animals needlessly (ahem, we are vegan, right?)

2. I said solar, not photovoltaic (SEE #1)

3. There is not enough economically and ethically source-able rare metals to keep doing this, as the materials get harder to extract the cost goes up. Lithium is also very toxic and burns its self in to vapor that cannot be recovered from open air.

4. Using electric cars right NOW is good, but only if we are using it as a stop gap to build out proper hydrogen gen/storage and transport systems. We can build a lot of it on top of the already extant liquid fuel network.

5. Fuel cells introduce the same issue as batteries.

6. 40 years and "billions of cars" (that will start to be unaffordable for most as the lithium and other rare metals get harder to extract. SEE #1 and # 3) is a very myopic view, we need to be starting to get this stuff going so we can continue as a (somewhat) technologically advanced species for centuries and beyond.

7. In 100 years, we may have had to realize that this fancy high-tech world is not sustainable at all, after the (affordable for real people) lithium has been capitalized, and may have to go back to slower times. Which hopefully would not be a return to more animal abuse.

8. Strawmanning the argument and trying to equate a very small amount of rare metals that might be used in some facets of hydrogen combustion that would last decades, VS the massive amounts of rare metals needed every 3 to 5 years for the metals that could not be recovered for batteries(not to mention the copper... Wow, how much copper is in those motors?).


Let's be honest, the reason why people think of electric cars as sexy is that they require just plugging in and seem 'futuristic', doesn't help that Al Gore got attached to hydrogen combustion. Anyways, like I said, my premise is thinking towards the real solution (if there really is one) that will work with no or little rare materials and could hopefully completely power a (much less power hungry) future.

Also, electric cars were available for sale before combustion cars... So they ain't new.
 
SapphireLightning said:
Ok, I think the premise of my argument got missed. Also, the math on resource use and environmental damage per KW/h or Mile/KM based on the disparity in how much of these rare materials are needed per type of auto and how often parts need replacing........ ........ .......

Here goes:

1. The premise was that we should start to focus on not just renewable energy, but materials that are abundant and infinitely renewable. Environmental destruction kills animals needlessly (ahem, we are vegan, right?)

2. I said solar, not photovoltaic (SEE #1)

3. There is not enough economically and ethically source-able rare metals to keep doing this, as the materials get harder to extract the cost goes up. Lithium is also very toxic and burns its self in to vapor that cannot be recovered from open air.

4. Using electric cars right NOW is good, but only if we are using it as a stop gap to build out proper hydrogen gen/storage and transport systems. We can build a lot of it on top of the already extant liquid fuel network.

5. Fuel cells introduce the same issue as batteries.

6. 40 years and "billions of cars" (that will start to be unaffordable for most as the lithium and other rare metals get harder to extract. SEE #1 and # 3) is a very myopic view, we need to be starting to get this stuff going so we can continue as a (somewhat) technologically advanced species for centuries and beyond.

7. In 100 years, we may have had to realize that this fancy high-tech world is not sustainable at all, after the (affordable for real people) lithium has been capitalized, and may have to go back to slower times. Which hopefully would not be a return to more animal abuse.

8. Strawmanning the argument and trying to equate a very small amount of rare metals that might be used in some facets of hydrogen combustion that would last decades, VS the massive amounts of rare metals needed every 3 to 5 years for the metals that could not be recovered for batteries(not to mention the copper... Wow, how much copper is in those motors?).


Let's be honest, the reason why people think of electric cars as sexy is that they require just plugging in and seem 'futuristic', doesn't help that Al Gore got attached to hydrogen combustion. Anyways, like I said, my premise is thinking towards the real solution (if there really is one) that will work with no or little rare materials and could hopefully completely power a (much less power hungry) future.

Also, electric cars were available for sale before combustion cars... So they ain't new.
Click to expand...

All good points. I think that some numbers (backed up by reputable sources) are needed to substantiate your statements.

I've presented reputable sources which show that the world has enough lithium reserves to build over 3 billion Tesla Model 3 type electric cars (this partly contradicts your earlier statement that there weren't enough battery minerals, period). The economics and ethics of lithium extraction are an important topic, of course. Please present economic and ethical analyses, with sources.

An electric car contains about 180 pounds of copper: Copper: How Tesla’s Biggest Ingredient Could Make You Rich in 2020 and How Much Copper is in an Electric Vehicle?

Solar thermal power plants are great, especially when they incorporate thermal energy storage. Currently, the economics seem to be driving the purchase of photovoltaic power plants. Concentrated Solar Power: What You Need to Know | EnergySage

None of these solutions is perfect - the numbers should identify which is the best solution. I've got to believe that these comparative analyses have already been made.

If you believe that lithium batteries can't be recycled (your point #8), please present evidence.
.
 
Last edited:
David3 said:
All good points. I think that some numbers (backed up by reputable sources) are needed to substantiate your statements.

I've presented reputable sources which show that the world has enough lithium reserves to build over 3 billion Tesla Model 3 type electric cars (this partly contradicts your earlier statement that there weren't enough battery minerals, period). The economics and ethics of lithium extraction are an important topic, of course. Please present economic and ethical analyses, with sources.

An electric car contains about 180 pounds of copper: Copper: How Tesla’s Biggest Ingredient Could Make You Rich in 2020 and How Much Copper is in an Electric Vehicle?

Solar thermal power plants are great, especially when they incorporate thermal energy storage. Currently, the economics seem to be driving the purchase of photovoltaic power plants. Concentrated Solar Power: What You Need to Know | EnergySage

None of these solutions is perfect - the numbers should identify which is the best solution. I've got to believe that these comparative analyses have already been made.

If you believe that lithium batteries can't be recycled (your point #8), please present evidence.
.
Click to expand...

I will get specific data later when I have time, but I still think you missed my core point. (BTW it was we need to start working towards not using rare and not fully recoverable materials). Also, your "numbers" are from a "how much money can I make off of this" vs "Is this something we should do". I find the lack of distinction telling about the path of scientific and technological development currently (again coming back to my main point...).

3 billion cars worth of lithium? I had thought you meant 30 billion cars worth.... The 3 billion makes your point moot; we cannot replace all of our fleet of vehicles with only 3 billion vehicles (ignoring the need for lithium outside of vehicles.). If the amount of lithium we have is THAT low, I underestimated how bad it is. We won't have enough for both cars and local house electric storage that Musk likes to tout....

Copper is getting rather rare. Again, the main long goal point I am making has been missed and turned in to a capitalist promotion.

Yes, I am aware that currently the r&d and the sleek new progress is going towards stuff that is easier to market (but also not very environmentally friendly). I call this the Elon-Musk-is-a-marketer-not-an-environmentalist effect.

Any numbers that drive r&d in this time period is based on profitability in a capitalistic economy, not based on what is right for the environment, etc.

I never said that lithium batteries were not renewable, but there are losses that require further mining. As you stated, we have a measly 3 billion cars worth of lithium. That is a pitiful and almost embarrassingly small amount. Use electric for now, but we need to see past those who entered the "eco" car race to make money, and start looking for the things that will work in an infinitely recyclable technology. It will take a long time to develop that properly, and the capitalism isn't there for it right now, but if we don't really start on the no/low rare materials tech r&d now, we may not have the infrastructure to do so when the rare stuff starts getting upper-class only.
 
SapphireLightning said:
Let's be honest, the reason why people think of electric cars as sexy is that they require just plugging in and seem 'futuristic', doesn't help that Al Gore got attached to hydrogen combustion.
Click to expand...
.
Plug-in cars have been commercially available in the United States since 2011-2012 (Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt), but their plug-in and futuristic aspects weren't enough to produce big sales volumes.

The big EV sales jump occurred in 2018, and it was driven almost entirely by the speedy Tesla Model 3: December 2018 U.S. Plug-In EV Sales Report Card . The Model 3 sells because it is good-looking and fast. Other electric vehicles are just as plug-in, and just as futuristic, but that's not enough to make them sexy.
1601325636186.png
 
*ahem* I am talking long term, not just today. 1.5 billion cars, plus the other uses for lithium, plus growing economies worldwide who expect cars, plus a growing population, plus the expectation that lion will be used for grid storage. All of that with my core point that this is a limited resource that is not fully recoverable so will deplete over time, and yes using it for now is fine and beneficial, but should be used only as a stop gap for finding not just renewable energy, but using much more abundantly available and infinitely recoverable materials (carbon, silicon, iron, etc).

I do not know if my basic point is being ignored on purpose, or what... Saying 2x what humans need for a single purpose is "plenty"... Again myopic.

I did not say to not use electric, I said we need to be putting much more in to developing tech that uses less/no rare non fully renewable materials. I do not see why this being the long term goal we fight to start working towards is such an issue among this crowd. And yes, as stated, I know it isn't as marketable currently. Nothing eco really is. Being eco-friendly is not actually going to be a totally convenient thing to do, but humans do not like giving up convenience.
 
SapphireLightning said:
5. Fuel cells introduce the same issue as batteries.
Click to expand...

Just a minor point here for anyone that's interested. I am going to do a separate post to try and get to the heart of the debate as you want to see it, so hold on.

If you mean fuel cells also use some minerals/mining then this is true, but it is less than BEVs and minimal overall impact compared to petrol/diesel cars.

Fuel cell vehicles also have batteries and they have the same type of lithium batteries as a normal electric car. I am not 100% sure on this but I believe the main reasons are
a) in order to be able to capture the energy from braking and not waste it

b) in order to be able to smooth out the delivery of energy. Fuel cells I think (hope this is right, can anyone confirm?) can't rapidly respond to someone slamming their foot on the accelerator in the same way a gas/petrol car can - the energy coming out of the fuel cell is more constant. So by storing the energy in the battery they are able to provide more energy on demand.

However, the batteries in fuel cell cars are much smaller, and so the lithium, cobalt demand etc is much smaller as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David3 and SapphireLightning
Jamie in Chile said:
Just a minor point here for anyone that's interested. I am going to do a separate post to try and get to the heart of the debate as you want to see it, so hold on.

If you mean fuel cells also use some minerals/mining then this is true, but it is less than BEVs and minimal overall impact compared to petrol/diesel cars.

Fuel cell vehicles also have batteries and they have the same type of lithium batteries as a normal electric car. I am not 100% sure on this but I believe the main reasons are
a) in order to be able to capture the energy from braking and not waste it

b) in order to be able to smooth out the delivery of energy. Fuel cells I think (hope this is right, can anyone confirm?) can't rapidly respond to someone slamming their foot on the accelerator in the same way a gas/petrol car can - the energy coming out of the fuel cell is more constant. So by storing the energy in the battery they are able to provide more energy on demand.

However, the batteries in fuel cell cars are much smaller, and so the lithium, cobalt demand etc is much smaller as well.
Click to expand...

I was simply referring to the use of lithium as the catalyst in it. I understand it is a much smaller amount than used in batteries.

Also, yes a sep thread would be good. I was not trying to poop on the parade, but I do think it is important to always have an * next to any electric car victory. It is a temporary boost, but is not truly a long term solution. (Also add in things not car or even electric based, just current consumption based...We need to change as a kind soon.). Presuming we as a species continue past 2060... :/
 
Sapphire Lighting, I bet there is not all that much difference between our points of view as I first thought. Tell me what you thing about this and where our opinions differ. Not sure if any of this address your core viewpoint of if I've just gone off on a mad tangent?

I am a believer in a zero waste economy although realistic about how long it takes to get there and that it will never be literally zero.

I am not a huge fan of extractivism and minerals and mining, and I would like to see less of it. But I don't believe in making this close to zero either. I think that would ultimately reduce human development and well being. Admittedly my argument that we shoudn't go to - or anywhere near - zero mining (at least in this century) may be something of a speciesist viewpoint.

I do think fighting climate change should take primacy over aiming for reduced extractivism and waste, because the threats of climate change seem so much worse, so mining lithium is actually a net good if it causes less petrol vehicles to be produced.

The argument that ultimately the extraction and throw away mindset has to change is a strong one that seems to be gaining in supporters.

Long term (centuries) it seems that there are ultimately three main arguments here as I see it:

1. We learn to live without constantly mining and extracting, whether because we live without so many materials, or because we learn to recycle them. At some point, this seems like the right direction, at least partly. This is the main argument of environmental left wingers, who often say it's the only long term solution, because they haven't considered arguments 2 and 3 or ignore them because they don't like them or it doesn't suit their ideology.

2. We expand to other planets, solar systems, or mine asteroids, thus allowing our current mindset to continue. However, to be fair it might take hundreds of years before we can do this, if ever, and in the meantime the Earth is going to be wrecked. So relying on this alone seems dumb.

3. Technology saves the day. At some point in the coming decades perhaps we will turn on the superintelligent artificial intelligence that will solve all these problems (if it decides not to destroy us)....or we will invent nano(dis)assemblers that can easily pick apart all the elements and give them back to us at raw elements....or nuclear technology becomes so advanced that we can change any one element into any other at will (after all, this is already what we do with nuclear fission and fusion as well as being how all the elements except hydrogen are thought to have been created in the first place in burning and exploding stars). ...or perhaps more likely something else I'm not capable of imagining.

Left wing environmentalists, and those who prophesize the greatest total doom from climate change and other issues, are implicitly working on the naive and flawed assumption that such technological developments won't happen. That being said, I think the assumption of zero technological development is much the sensible and less risky way to plan. Just assuming technology will save the day is somewhere between risky and dumb.
 
SapphireLightning said:
*ahem* I am talking long term, not just today. 1.5 billion cars, plus the other uses for lithium, plus growing economies worldwide who expect cars, plus a growing population, plus the expectation that lion will be used for grid storage.
Click to expand...
.
What is the numerical estimate of the world's long-term requirement for rechargeable batteries, assuming (1) the car requirements of growing economies and (2) the transition to grid-scale battery electricity storage?
.
 
The United Nations makes these statements:

"Demand for raw materials used in the production of electric car batteries is set to soar, prompting the UN trade body, UNCTAD, to call for the social and environmental impacts of the extraction of raw materials, which include human rights abuses, to be urgently addressed."

"two-thirds of all cobalt production happens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), about 20 per cent of cobalt supplied from the DRC comes from artisanal mines, where human rights abuses have been reported, and up to 40,000 children work in extremely dangerous conditions in the mines for meagre income."

"And in Chile, lithium mining uses nearly 65% of the water in the country's Salar de Atamaca region, one of the driest desert areas in the world, to pump out brines from drilled wells. This has forced local quinoa farmers and llama herders to migrate and abandon ancestral settlements. It has also contributed to environment degradation, landscape damage and soil contamination, groundwater depletion and pollution."

Link: UN highlights urgent need to tackle impact of likely electric car battery production boom

So, some of Saphhire's points are validated by the United Nations. The mining of cobalt and lithium can be done very badly, or can be done better. This is true of all mining operations, of course.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lou
David3 said:
So, some of Saphhire's points are validated by the United Nations. The mining of cobalt and lithium can be done very badly, or can be done better. This is true of all mining operations, of course.
Click to expand...

In no way am I trying to minimize the issue but there are human rights concerns in many industries and in many countries. Apparel in South East Asia, iPhones in China, Chocolate in West Africa, Coffee in South America, Tomatoes in Florida, Strawberries in California. There is a lot that first-world consumers can do about this kind of stuff. and not to abdicate my responsibility but I'm glad the UN and other organizations are working on it.

To echo some of our discussions on Climate Change, we can do a lot individually but a lot is dependent on policy makers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David3

Similar threads

500channelsurfer
Politicians are not Actioning Climate Change & Environment
Replies
8
Views
944
Environment
Lou
Lou
E
  • Poll
A fellow vegan and his animals-Your Thoughts Needed
Replies
16
Views
2K
General
Clairey
Clairey
Vegan Dogs
Veganism-Helps Climate Change
Replies
29
Views
5K
Environment
Jamie in Chile
Jamie in Chile
Sax
Beginning of the end of beef industry
Replies
13
Views
2K
General
Jamie in Chile
Jamie in Chile
Jinendra Singh
$20 Billion Company Goes Meat-Free To Reduce Its Carbon Footprint
Replies
0
Views
919
General
Jinendra Singh
Jinendra Singh
Top Bottom
Back