You are not logged in.
Recent posts about Lithium battery technology inspired a search for information about Lithium ...
Google found this article, which discusses mining of Lithium in some depth:
\\https://medium.com/batterybits/is-there-enough-lithium-to-make-all-the-batteries-c3a522c01498
Acknowledgements
Kathryn Goodenough’s research on lithium is funded by the United Kingdom’s Natural Environment Research Council through the LiFT project. Thank you to Minviro for their prospective life cycle assessment modeling and to our friends in the industry who kindly reviewed this article, especially Austin Devaney, Peter Ehren, and the British Geological Survey. Thank you to Battery Bits for publishing this piece.
References
[1] BNEF, 2019. Will the Real Lithium Demand Please Stand Up? Challenging the 1Mt-by-2025 Orthodoxy. URL.
[2] Tesla, 2020. Battery Day. URL.
[3] BMW Group, 2021. BMW Group steps up sustainable sourcing of lithium for battery cell production to ensure rapid e-mobility expansion. URL.
[4] Skinner, 1976. Second Iron Age Ahead. URL.
[5] Reuters, 2020. Chile lithium miner SQM says to slash water, brine use at Atacama. URL.
[6] USGS, 2021. Salar de Atacama. URL.
[7] Orocobre, 2021. Orocobre Limited lithium price upgrade and quarterly report date. URL.
[8] Lithium Americas, 2019. NI 43–101 Technical Report — Updated Feasibility Study and Mineral Reserve Estimation to Support 40,000 TPA Lithium Carbonate Production at the Cauchari-Olaroz Salars, Jujuy Province, Argentina.
[9] Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, 2020. Lithium-ion battery supply chain technology development and investment opportunities.
[10] Minviro, Jade Cove Partners, and Marbex, 2020. The CO2 Impact of the 2020s’ Battery Quality Lithium Hydroxide Supply Chain. URL.
[11] Mining Magazine, 2021. Schlumberger and Panasonic launch DLE partnership. URL.
Alex Grant is Principal at Jade Cove Partners. He is a Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree in Energy for 2021, and a research affiliate at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Alex is Partner at Minviro, where he helps build environmental impact models of lithium-ion battery supply chain processes. He is also Technology Innovation Advisor at Zelandez, a lithium brinefield services company with operations in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Alex is a co-founder of Lilac Solutions, a Silicon Valley lithium extraction technology company funded by Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
Alex has an M.S. from Northwestern University in Chemical Engineering and a B.Eng. from McGill University in Chemical Engineering & Philosophy.
Find Alex by Linkedin, Twitter, or email. He is based in beautiful San Francisco, California.
(th)
Online
Ignoring mining costs entirely, there's enough known Lithium reserves (89 million metric tons) to make a grand total of 267 million Tesla Model S vehicles with the 100kWh battery. After that, there is no more known Lithium to make Lithium-anything batteries, for any other purpose (cell phones, laptops, cordless power tools, grid-scale energy storage, electric VTOL aircraft nonsense, etc).
There are presently 1.5 billion passenger cars in the world. That's what the "first generation" of Lithium-whatever battery tech could potentially "electrify", whatever that happens to be. There will be no second generation without cannibalizing the first generation. That leaves 82.2% of the existing fleet of passenger vehicles to be powered by something besides Lithium-whatever batteries. You'd need a Lithium reserve 5X larger than what is presently known, just to cover passenger cars with a 300 mile range on them. No semi-trucks or farming tractors or container ships or aircraft or backup power supplies?
After the Lithium reserve is gone, then what? Get real (I hope)?
Are we gonna accuse "Big Lithium" of keeping super secret Lithium battery technology from the world?
Religious conversion to fuel cells, someone like Elon "Fool Cell" Musk calling batteries "fooleries", or some such nonsense?
Back to internal combustion?
This is silly. It always was. It was never a significant part of the solution set. It's a great way to spend a lot of money to get poorer, though, and then there's not as much money left for an actual solution.
Anyone can do the math to "know this". They don't even need a college education.
Offline
The only feasible solution to the Lithium scarcity problem is to start mining the oceans for Lithium. 5,800t of sea water, or 5,800m^3, needs to be processed to obtain 1kg of Lithium, because Lithium's concentration in sea water is about 180 parts per billion. Stanford scientists assert that they can extract Lithium from seawater for $5/kg. Maybe they can, but how they arrived at that figure is unknown. As always, these articles proclaiming miraculous scientific discoveries are woefully short on very pertinent details.
Stanford needs to let the Lithium miners know that they can get Lithium 30X cheaper than current prices, if that's actually the case. I suspect it isn't. Whenever money is involved, ethics goes right out the window. There is only one color of "green" these people care about, and that's the color of money. As a fellow capitalist, I congratulate them on their marketing drivel, but I need to see a demonstration where 1kg of Lithium is extracted for $5 before proclaiming that a miracle has happened.
Offline
Cost to make the battery of the size for the electrical equivalent of "39.75kWh/gallon" needs to come in at a gallon of gas price for the given life cycles of number of charging's that it takes before it's no longer operative.
Offline
SpaceNut,
I think the best way to stretch our existing Lithium supplies is to stop making giant batteries for sports cars. 50 to 100 miles of range covers 99% of real world driving. You can make 10X more car batteries that way. You can make 100X more car batteries using hybrids. That solves the "range problem", as well as the more serious issue of depleting the entire known global reserve of Lithium. That seems like a better plan, even if it doesn't pass someone's ideological purity tests. I can't speak for anyone else, but I like having cell phones and laptops powered by Lithium-ion, rather than Lead-acid batteries.
Offline
The post #55 has a date of 2023-07-07, before the recent NewMars outage.
While we were waiting for the site to come back online, the news feeds were generating items that would likely have found their way into the forum, if it had been up.
One of these was a report that a large supply of lithium has been identified in Maine. Unfortunately for the discoverers, the Maine residents in the area are folks with long memories of previous exploitation by human beings who dug up valuable materials and discarded vast quantities of waste while polluting the ground water and other aspects of the environment for decades. Human behavior is probably reasonably predictable. For that reason, the folks in Maine are prohibiting the mining of this valuable mineral.
It may be possible to mine lithium from an underground site without creating unacceptable disturbances.
Members of the forum are invited to keep watch for news of progress on that front. There would appear to be an economic opportunity in Maine, and perhaps other locations where residents are skeptical of promises, based upon past behavior.
(th)
Online
NASA pushes back against those tapping into U.S. lithium reserves
Offline
Seems the limits of elements for batteries is no more as Scientists discover enormous goldmine of lithium in U.S.: ‘This is a very, very significant deposit’
The newly discovered lithium deposit is believed to be one of the world’s most significant and available sources of lithium — and it’s located in the United States.
The McDermitt Caldera, on the border of Oregon and Nevada, is estimated to hold between 22 and 44 million tons of the metal, according to Futurism. This makes global leader Bolivia’s 23 million tons encased in salt flats look less significant.
Offline
SpaceNut,
If all the rest of the Lithium deposits in the world were woefully insufficient to meet demand for the first generation of EVs, then one more deposit, equal to a smaller portion of the global supply, doesn't mean that there's enough Lithium. We need to discover about a dozen more deposits like the one along the Nevada-Oregon border. Someone also needs to do the work to prove-out the size of the reserve in the US deposit, meaning quantify how much metal is actually in the ground. We know it's a lot, but how much? There's a big difference between 22M and 44M tons.
Offline
SpaceNut, thanks for creating this topic ...
I was looking for a topic to report on a recent visit to Batteries +
There are three topics that include the word 'lithium" but yours is the only generic topic.
***
On a recent visit to Batteries +, I asked about using lithium batteries as an alternative to my standard 12 volt lead acid batteries.
The lead acid battery provides 9 Amp Hours, and the lithium battery of the same size provides only 2 Amp Hours. The cost is almost twice as great, but the weight is feather light compared to the lead acid.
However, what I find interesting is that the sales person actively argued against using the lithium battery.
I find this counter intuitive, because normally a salesperson would want to increase the sales dollar amount.
In the end, I went with the replacement lead acid battery, but I still wonder if the lithium battery would have been a good choice.
The application is power tools operated at a field location. I made a power supply out of two 12 volt lead acid batteries in series, and found that it works fine for supply of power to 19 VDC devices. The original (OEM) batteries died long ago, and I proved to my satisfaction that the lead acid batteries do the job just as well.
However, the lead acid batteries die on the vine ... I keep them charged, but they still die on the vine, so that when I want to use them, they are no longer useful.
If I go with the lithium equivalent, I'd be getting less Amp Hours, but perhaps the capacity would be adequate for the power tools, and perhaps the batteries would last longer between uses.
(th)
Online
Here is an update on the lithium deposits under the Salton Sea...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/worl … 12987.html
Benzinga
World's Largest Reserve Of REE Lithium Discovered Beneath California's Salton Sea: $540 Billion Motherlode Could Meet America's Supply Demands For DecadesEric McConnell
Tue, December 26, 2023 at 11:00 AM EST·4 min read
118 commentsWhen it comes to rare-earth elements (REEs), lithium stands out because of its usefulness and potential value. That's why the Department of Energy (DOE) was jumping for joy when it discovered what is believed to be the world's largest supply of lithium beneath California's Salton Sea. The estimated 18 million-ton motherlode could be worth up to $540 billion and meet America's demand for decades to come.
In the 1990s, lithium was perhaps most famous for being the title of a hit song by the band Nirvana. Fast forward 30 years, and Lithium has become famous as an indispensable element in the multibillion-dollar renewable energy industry. Lithium is a key component of the rechargeable batteries that power things like electric cars. Production of other important consumer products like cellular phones and solar energy panels also requires large amounts of lithium.
Without enough Lithium to power those batteries and other innovations, the world's effort to fight climate change through renewable energy will be hampered. In a recent report, high-ranking DOE official Jeff Marootian said, "Lithium is vital to decarbonizing the economy and meeting President Biden's goals of 50% electric vehicle adoption by 2030." The problem with that is China currently dominates the global production of lithium.
A global rival such as China controlling the world's supply of lithium runs counter to America's strategic and economic interests. That's why the DOE has been funding the exploration of lithium sources inside the United States. As part of that effort, it gave a $14.9 million grant to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Energy to study the area surrounding the Salton Sea, which straddles Riverside and Imperial counties in the California desert.
California Gov. Gavin Newsome was touring the Salton Sea with President Joe Biden to tout America's renewable energy industry when he referred to the area as "t "the Saudi Arabia of lithium." If that sounds like an exaggeration, consider that the DOE estimates there is enough lithium beneath the Salton Sea to provide batteries for more than 375 million electric vehicles (EVs).
The estimated 18 million tons of lithium would put America firmly in the lead in terms of supplying the global market. It could turbocharge EV and solar production and has the potential to give the United States an unprecedented level of energy independence.
If the lithium beneath the Salton Sea can be harvested and brought to market, America would no longer have to rely on nations like Saudi Arabia and China for its energy or automaking needs. America would also be much richer because lithium is worth an estimated $29,000 per ton. That would make the Salton Sea's estimated 18 million gallons worth $540 billion.
A partnership between the U.S. government and Buffett has the potential to increase America's production of lithium and profitability for the industry. That's why Berkshire Hathaway Energy is hard at work. The company operates 10 of the Salton Sea's geothermal power plants.
It is not alone. EnergySource and Controlled Thermal Resources are also operating in the area. If America becomes the global leader in lithium production, it could lead to a boom of lithium-based businesses that could add billions or trillions of dollars per year to the U.S. economy.
Read Next:
If the lithium beneath the Salton Sea can be harvested and brought to market
(th)
Online
The Different Type Of Electric Car Batteries Explained
Lithium-ion batteries
Pros:
High Energy Density: Lithium-ion batteries can store a large amount of energy in a small package. This translates to longer driving ranges for electric vehicles compared to other battery types like lead-acid. A typical EV battery pack might weigh around 800 pounds but can offer a range of over 200 miles on a single charge.
Long Lifespan: Lithium-ion batteries can be cycled, meaning charged and discharged, multiple times before showing significant degradation.
High Efficiency: Lithium-ion batteries have a high charge/discharge efficiency, meaning less energy is lost during the process. This translates to increased range and reduced energy consumption for the vehicle.
Lightweight: Despite their high energy density, Lithium-ion batteries are inherently lighter than other battery types, contributing to improved vehicle performance and reduced weight.
Cons:
Safety Concerns: Lithium-ion batteries are susceptible to overheating and thermal runaway in extreme circumstances, which can lead to fires. However, modern battery management systems and cell design improvements have significantly mitigated these risks.
Environmental Impact: While electric vehicles offer substantial environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions, Lithium-ion battery production involves the mining of raw materials like lithium and cobalt, which can have environmental and social concerns associated with them.
Performance Degradation in Cold Weather: Cold temperatures can reduce the efficiency and range of Lithium-ion batteries, posing challenges in colder climates. Battery pre-conditioning systems can help mitigate this issue.
Lead-Acid Batteries
Pros:
High surge current: They excel at delivering short bursts of high power, a crucial factor for cranking up car engines.
Reliable and robust: Lead-acid batteries are known for their longevity and resilience.
Mature technology: Their long history translates to widespread availability, established maintenance procedures, and readily accessible recycling processes.
Cons:
Low energy density: Lead-acid batteries store significantly less energy per unit weight or volume compared to lithium-ion, limiting their driving range in EVs.
Shallow discharge cycles: They degrade faster with deep discharges, impacting their suitability for powering the primary propulsion of electric vehicles.
Heavyweight: The lead content makes them significantly heavier than lithium-ion batteries, affecting vehicle agility and efficiency.
Environmental concerns: Lead and sulfuric acid pose potential environmental hazards if not handled and disposed of responsibly.
Nickel-Metal Hydride Batteries
Pros:
High Energy Density: Compared to their predecessor, Nickel-Cadmium (NiCd) batteries, NiMH batteries boast significantly higher energy density, allowing them to store more energy per unit volume and weight. This translates to a potentially longer driving range for electric cars equipped with NiMH batteries.
Good Cold-Weather Performance: Unlike Li-ion batteries, which can lose significant capacity in cold temperatures, NiMH batteries maintain a relatively stable performance even in chilly weather.
Environmentally Friendly: NiMH batteries do not contain major toxic metals like cadmium or lead, making them a more environmentally friendly alternative to NiCd batteries. Additionally, they boast high recycling rates, further reducing their environmental footprint.
Cons:
Lower Energy Density than Li-ion: Despite their improvement over NiCd batteries, NiMH batteries still hold less energy per unit volume compared to Li-ion batteries. This translates to a shorter potential driving range for EVs equipped with NiMH batteries compared to those with Li-ion batteries.
Memory Effect: NiMH batteries are susceptible to the "memory effect," where repeated partial discharges can lead to a reduction in overall capacity. While not as severe as in NiCd batteries, this phenomenon can still shorten the lifespan of a NiMH battery.
Higher Self-Discharge Rate: NiMH batteries tend to lose their charge faster than Li-ion batteries when not in use. This can be a disadvantage for EVs used infrequently or stored for extended periods.
Safety Concerns: While generally considered safe, NiMH batteries can occasionally experience thermal runaway under certain conditions, which can lead to fire or explosion. This necessitates proper safety measures and monitoring systems in EVs utilizing these batteries.
Solid-State Batteries
Pros:
Safety: The elimination of flammable liquids significantly reduces the risk of fire and explosion, a major concern with lithium-ion batteries. This enhanced safety makes solid-state batteries particularly attractive for applications in aircraft, public transportation, and grid storage.
Higher Energy Density: Solid-state batteries can store more energy per unit volume than lithium-ion batteries. This translates to longer driving ranges for EVs, smaller and lighter batteries, or even increased cargo space.
Longer Lifespan: Solid-state batteries are expected to have significantly longer lifespans than lithium-ion batteries. This would reduce the need for frequent battery replacements, lowering the overall cost of ownership for EVs.
Wider Temperature Range: Solid-state batteries are expected to operate efficiently across a broader temperature range, from extreme cold to scorching heat. This makes them suitable for use in diverse climates and environments, without the need for complex thermal management systems.
Cons:
Cost: Currently, solid-state batteries are significantly more expensive to produce than lithium-ion batteries. This high cost is a major hurdle to widespread adoption, particularly in the price-sensitive EV market.
Manufacturing Challenges: Manufacturing solid-state batteries is a complex and challenging process, requiring specialized equipment and materials. This limits production capacity and contributes to the high cost.
Performance: While solid-state batteries offer significant potential, they are still under development. Their real-world performance in terms of energy density, charging speed, and lifespan needs further testing and validation.
Material Availability: Some of the materials used in solid-state batteries are rare and expensive, raising concerns about potential supply chain disruptions and environmental impact.
Offline
The major issue for battery use is fast charge and it seems that can be solved Innovative powder-powered batteries could be the key to unlocking long-range, fast-charging EVs: ‘It’s sophisticated science’
Offline
For SpaceNut .... here is an encouraging report about lithium battery life-extension .... the method appears to work for all size batteries, including those for cars...
https://interestingengineering.com/ener … 11.03.24_1
Our daily news digest will keep you up to date with engineering, science and technology news, Monday to Saturday.
Scientists, including those backed by automotive giant Toyota, have made a breakthrough that could put a major dent in our e-waste problem and keep those electric vehicles’ lithium-ion batteries running for years to come.
Revitalizing old batteries
How’d they do it? Think of it like a super-powered energy drink for your car’s battery. These clever researchers have found a way to inject specific chemicals into aging lithium-ion batteries. This injection replenishes the lost charged particles that help the battery store power. Imagine giving your tired battery a second wind!
SEE ALSO
RELATED
The ultimate guide to battery technology
In a huge leap, LG Chem begins building the US’ largest cathode factory
New research on solid-state batteries could lead to longer-lasting batteries
Before you go stockpiling old phone batteries, hold up. This technique won’t fix a physically busted battery. Think of it more like a revitalizing treatment for batteries that are simply starting to slow down and lose their oomph over time.We know that these precious lithium-ion batteries are the most common type of rechargeable batteries, powering our daily lives, from smartphones to electric cars. But over time, they lose their ability to hold a charge, making them less efficient and reliable. This is because they lose some charged particles, or ions, that store and release energy inside the battery.
But what if you could replenish those ions and restore the battery’s original capacity? That’s exactly what the researchers from Toyota Central R&D Labs in Japan have achieved, using a single-step process that could reduce waste and boost the supply of batteries needed for fleets of electric vehicles.
The researchers injected a special substance, called a recovery reagent, into the battery cells. This substance triggered a chemical reaction that produced more lithium ions and electrons, the two types of charged particles that enable a battery to store power. By adding more of these particles, the researchers were able to reverse the degradation of the battery and restore 80 percent of its original capacity. The restored battery also maintained its performance for 100 charging and discharging cycles.
Graphical Abstract
The researchers tested their method on small and large batteries, including those used for automotive applications. “The effectiveness of the system was verified not only with small-sized batteries for lab use but also with large batteries for automotive use,” says Nobuhiro Ogihara, the study’s lead researcher.The technique could extend the useful lifetimes of lithium-ion batteries, allowing them to be reused in electric cars or other devices rather than being discarded or undergoing a complex disassembly and recycling process. This could save money, resources, and the environment, as lithium-ion batteries contain valuable and scarce materials, such as cobalt and nickel, often mined unsustainably.
Not a magic bullet for all types
However, the technique is not a magic bullet for all types of battery degradation. It only works for batteries that have lost their ions due to repeated charging and discharging, not those that have suffered structural damage or other forms of deterioration. It also requires a way to diagnose the battery’s state and determine whether it suits the injection.“It’s only for batteries which have undergone a very specific form of degradation… and that is only useful if you know the history of the battery or can diagnose what state it is in through simple, non-destructive methods,” says Jacqueline Edge, an expert on battery degradation at Imperial College London. She adds that long-term studies are needed to understand the potential side effects of the chemical injection on the battery and its safety.
As NewScientist reports, the Toyota research group has filed a patent application for their work, which has attracted interest and funding from other companies and government agencies, such as the US Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. Restoring used batteries is part of a broader vision of creating a circular economy for battery technology, where materials and products are reused and recycled rather than wasted.
“Anything getting us closer to circularity in battery technology – in particular something that avoids disassembly and reassembly – is very exciting news,” says Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli, a materials science and engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It is likely that this wouldn’t work for an indefinite number of cycles, so other technologies requiring disassembly will still be necessary. But this seems technologically very promising.”
The researchers have published their work on Joule
(th)
Online
Ignoring mining costs entirely, there's enough known Lithium reserves (89 million metric tons) to make a grand total of 267 million Tesla Model S vehicles with the 100kWh battery. After that, there is no more known Lithium to make Lithium-anything batteries, for any other purpose (cell phones, laptops, cordless power tools, grid-scale energy storage, electric VTOL aircraft nonsense, etc).
That's a completely wrong statement.
A battery has 160g per kwh. Lithium is very light, and most weight per battery come from other elements. So 100 kwh is around 16 kg
So 89 million tons or 89 billion kg are 5 billion 100kwh batteries.
Besides that, lithium reserves have gone up recently. That's because reserves are not the quantity exist in the underground (because we don't know them for sure), but the concept of known or estimated quantities exploitable under (again) estimation of economic exploitable resource.
With changes in technology making a lot cheaper to exploit previous unexploitable reserves or known previous undiscovered and underestimated deposits reserves can go up, as it has been the case. The reserves haven't going down with the usage, but the opposite.
Of course, as the technology matures, we can't expect that trend to continue, much like in fossil fuels, but we don't know the real value until we have working on this for a time and the estimations become more and more accurate.
We know that the reserves in sea water are in the range of billion tons. Around 200 billion tons. They are normally discarded as they are considered uneconomically reserves, but that depends on factors like technology, price and level of recycling of lithium.
It's not the same to use that reserves to deploy new batteries than just replace a fraction of non recycled lithium in a previous recycled battery where good recycling values can go up over 95% of recycled lithium.
Anyway, for non-dense batteries, like backup systems, sodium-ion seems a very fine replacement (still pending from real data, as the first sodium-ion batteries are deploying to the market just now). Probably the winner technology on long term on that market.
It's energy density per weight is very close to lithium batteries. It's in the energy density per volume where it's clearly behind, but it's not a huge difference so I expect some vehicles to use sodium-ion in the future.
Offline
Spaniard,
Do only 5 billion people get to have a car?
If only 2.5 billion people get to have cars, does that mean all the Lithium is gone by the 2nd generation of EVs?
That's 1 more generation of EVs away. Then, what?
How about home energy storage?
How about laptops, cell phones, watches, flashlights, etc?
How about replacing all the diesel trucks engines with batteries?
Farming and mining equipment, too?
You can see where this is going, can't you?
Sea water has Lithium? Great. Why didn't we go after that first? Why create all the toxic lakes everywhere when there's Lithium in sea water? Is it because the energy cost of extracting Lithium from sea water is so great when the concentration is measured in 0.2 parts per million? Do you think we'll need stupendous amounts of energy to extract useful quantities of it from sea water?
If all sea water has its Lithium extracted and all known terrestrial sources depleted, then we can come nowhere close to powering civilization off of Lithium-ion batteries.
Sodium's energy density per unit weight is presently nowhere near that of Lithium. That is a fact. It's about half as much in all actual working batteries. Do you figure it'll take another 40 years of development work to get Sodium-ion up to where Lithium-ion is today after 40+ years of development time? Be realistic about this. Sodium-ion is far behind Lithium-ion in terms of gravimetric and volumetric energy density.
These are not rhetorical questions, Spaniard. Some who is still advocating for this all-electric future silliness needs to think about how their lives will be impacted when the resource they think is unlimited is depleted before their eyes in less than 2 generations of battery operated cars, or semi-trucks, or farming and mining equipment.
Stop trying to sell me on the idea of how much Lithium there could be if every last kilo was mined. The Andes Mountains are one giant very low grade Copper deposit. Are we going to level the entire Andes Mountain range in this mad quest to make everything electric?
Most Sodium metal is presently made in the US, in tiny quantities, and there are no facilities to make it elsewhere. Furthermore, there are no electric vehicles using Sodium-ion batteries, because they are nowhere near ready for mass production. That might happen in another 20 years, which is how long it took for Lithium-ion to catch on.
Start selling me on how we're going to recycle Lithium into new batteries with near-100% efficiency, into perpetuity, because we have to, in order to keep using it.
This "plan", that functionally doesn't exist, is like a little kid with a box of crayolas drawing a picture of a rocket ship, and then claiming that's the blueprint for building a rocket that can go to another planet. We have a bunch of people who have been deluded into thinking something insane, like leveling the entire Andes Mountain range to extract the Copper, is a feasible economic endeavor that's going to bring about the electric revolution.
Show me some specifics. Put some numbers to your idea. Stop throwing out meaningless factoids about how much of metal X vs metal Y is in the Earth's crust. You haven't told me anything I don't already know. Tell me how much energy is involved in extracting Lithium from sea water. Tell me about what happens to energy consumption for extraction as you reduce the Lithium concentration in sea water.
Again, this is NOT rhetoric! This should be an adult conversation about the limits of consumption.
Offline
Spaniard,
Do only 5 billion people get to have a car?
The projection is based in current reserves which seems too conservative. That number is probably underestimated, and even with that, it's more than enough to supply the market for three decades, that it's more than enough to develop any other battery solution if it were needed.
Also that projection is based on certain proportion of lithium per kwh that could change in the future. The number are not rigid. That's not how the market works.
How about home energy storage?
How about laptops, cell phones, watches, flashlights, etc?
How about replacing all the diesel trucks engines with batteries?
How about the periodic table?
Do you know that theses products uses a lot more scarce elements than lithium?
https://library.ucsd.edu/news-events/wp … 68x542.png
Of course the solution is always the same. Reduce the consumption with better strategies, recycle the elements so the same material can be used again and again or just replace the element for other better suited in the new scenario when the old is not right anymore.
That's the reason because we are trying to make fossil fuels obsolete in first place. Climate and avoid future scarcity.
Sea water has Lithium? Great. Why didn't we go after that first? Why create all the toxic lakes everywhere when there's Lithium in sea water? Is it because the energy cost of extracting Lithium from sea water is so great when the concentration is measured in 0.2 parts per million? Do you think we'll need stupendous amounts of energy to extract useful quantities of it from sea water?
That's the reason because we need develop first the best ways to extract with the minimum energy and make the recycling industry to reach very high values. Now is not convenient because the recycling industry is just in the starting stage and we have cheaper sources.
So the real lifespan of that lithium will be a lot longer that just looking at the first usage of the material. So a high extraction cost could be compensated by a very long lifespan of the raw material (not the same that the product as the raw material is recycled a lot of times).
In any case, as I said, we can expect the reserves to increase in the near future. Only after sometime, the estimations will turn more precise and we could estimate of the Bell curve applied to the discovery and extraction of reserves, much like in fossil fuels. In lithium we are just at the start of the curve with unreliable data.
If all sea water has its Lithium extracted and all known terrestrial sources depleted, then we can come nowhere close to powering civilization off of Lithium-ion batteries.
Did you notice that in sea water i said BILLIONS?
That's three order of magnitude (x1000) greater than (current) land reserves. That's a good reason to doubt about the reliability of our current data of land lithium reserves. Too much disparity between them. Sea water is easy to estimate, as lithium is dissolved, you just need pretty much multiply the lithium in a small sample to the size of the sea water. And the error margin is not too big. On land things are a lot more complicated.
But anyway, even in the most conservative estimations, the quantity is more than enough to serve the market for a long time, enough to develop other alternatives. That's the reason because nobody inside this market is specially worried about these numbers and focused on short term circumstances like the deployment of resource extraction, which can be lacking in a faster growth than expected scenario.
Sodium's energy density per unit weight is presently nowhere near that of Lithium. That is a fact. It's about half as much in all actual working batteries.
Let's put real numbers here.
CATL battery manufacturer is currently manufacture sodium ion of first generation with announced values of 160 wh/kg. That's the manufacturer data. And they said that they are working in a 200 wh/kg second generation.
That's pretty close values of low-end/old LFP lithium-ion. Not half.
They are worse in the volumetric density, but that's not a big problem in a long term scenario. That's because other this could be changed, like make the vehicles bigger (not heavier). Just, it's not convenient now. It required to develop new vehicle platforms if you intend to use sodium-ion for long travel vehicles, so for now it's just better to wait to see what happens with battery evolution and lithium reserves.
In any case, sodium-ion seems more than enough for city-type vehicles and we will probably see this kind of vehicles in the coming years. And probably sooner in recent developed countries, as old ones have people with old behaviors and will generate more resistance to the changes.
Do you figure it'll take another 40 years of development work to get Sodium-ion up to where Lithium-ion is today after 40+ years of development time? Be realistic about this. Sodium-ion is far behind Lithium-ion in terms of gravimetric and volumetric energy density.
They are making NOW the first sodium-ion generation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKtCquWx5c
Notice that this announce was from two years ago. The production is happening now.
These are not rhetorical questions, Spaniard. Some who is still advocating for this all-electric future silliness needs to think about how their lives will be impacted when the resource they think is unlimited is depleted before their eyes in less than 2 generations of battery operated cars, or semi-trucks, or farming and mining equipment.
You are clearly based on biased that, so you obtain wrong conclusions.
People a lot more informed than us is working on this. The numbers you are saying are wrong. And the resources of fossil fuel are clearly a lot more problematic that these other numbers about EVs.
The workers in this field is not worried about lithium. There is more than enough lithium for the coming decades, and electric vehicles don't require lithium but batteries, whatever elements it uses. They are plenty of alternatives.
They are some worries regardless of the speed of deployment which can spark new peak prices (short term, but still a problem for the industry), but that's a completely different thing.
It's matter of money. The more expensive the elements are, the more investment will be in the battery market what will turn into better reduction, recycling or new battery alternatives.
That's how EVERYTHING works in the market, including that whole list of technologies that you mentioned before. Including electronics.
If humanity were unable to find substitutes for current electronics, as an example, this technological civilization would be doomed anyway, regardless of electric cars and everything around that.
Not to mention a long term space program.
We need to move forward finding substitutes when they are needed. That's the main reason I personally doesn't understand why are you here. That kind of fixed mentality, basically luddite, is incompatible with a long space program.
A long space program requires a long term civilization, and a long term civilization require a circular economy with "100%" material recycling.
Understand that 100% is not necessary done with just direct recycling which is impossible, but with a recuperation for disperse sources in a long term endless loop. Because disperse are more expensive, to make numbers works we need that the direct recycling reach as highest numbers as possible, so disperse materials will need only to replace a small fraction of the total.
We know that the model works because nature has done before. The question is not if it works. It does. The question is if humankind will be able to replicate the model in a high developed civilization fashion (the old one based integrated on nature also works... just it's not desirable)
And that model clearly pushes for a change in our energy model among other things. Electrification is a step in the right direction as it's compatible with a circular economy. Fossil fuels don't.
Stop trying to sell me on the idea of how much Lithium there could be if every last kilo was mined. The Andes Mountains are one giant very low grade Copper deposit. Are we going to level the entire Andes Mountain range in this mad quest to make everything electric?
I'm not an expert of copper, besides you are doing a inflexible mentality.
Maybe better technologies of extraction will make it profitable. Maybe batteries (like sodium) will replace copper with aluminum in cells. Maybe they are other resources there that have more sense to extract. Maybe the recycling will be a more economic solution.
How knows whats the right path? We will try everyone and the right ones will triumph. Probably multiple does as they are compatible.
The madness is to don't develop (not even try) a solution and walk a path we know for sure is a dead end. That's fossil fuels.
Most Sodium metal is presently made in the US, in tiny quantities, and there are no facilities to make it elsewhere.
Yeah. It does happens when there is NO demand. TODAY.
Last lithium related infrastructure is very recent in construction, as the high demand for lithium is also very recent. The same could be said for sodium.
Just wait and see. If sodium-ion demand soar (and I see strong indications that this will happen in coming years) the facilities will be constructed in year timescale.
It's not like the raw source, sodium chloride, pretty much sea salt, is lacking.
Furthermore, there are no electric vehicles using Sodium-ion batteries, because they are nowhere near ready for mass production.
That might happen in another 20 years, which is how long it took for Lithium-ion to catch on.
You are clearly using bad data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIaHEPeBvLU
If there is a reason for sodium-ion to have modest demand is that lithium is plenty, so there is no need for sodium. If the price of lithium goes up strongly again, sodium-ion manufacture will rise quickly if there isn't unknown problems.
Definitely, if there is no hidden problems, sodium-ion seems a better solution of stationary storage energy than lithium. Volumetric density is clearly not a problem for stationary storage. And if that market explodes, that will also push for better sodium-ion batteries how could be enough to make it a viable candidate for high performance vehicles when now is lacking.
Start selling me on how we're going to recycle Lithium into new batteries with near-100% efficiency, into perpetuity, because we have to, in order to keep using it.
Well. I did already X-D
Because it's a non negotiable long term goal. Circular economy is required to achieve a long term civilization.
Other way, you will exhaust the resources and crumble. It's pure math.
Materials, except on nuclear reaction or atmospheric looses, are always there. Exhaust is just a name for "reduced accessibility", as every atom is still there. Just in a open loop model, like fossil fuels, they are more and more difficult to regain the original state more convenient for our civilization.
That's what a circular economy concept is. To reach a level of energy requirement enough low to be able to close the circle of 100% reusing materials and support our own energy infrastructure and everything else running. Other way we will lack energy to recycling 100% and the accessibility will go down, which will turn in less access to materials over time until crumble.
And while we think in short term because humankind variables changes too fast, on a civilization scale, long term space projects like terraformation require a complete different mindset.
As we don't know the future speed of humankind, the most we can do is to estimate requirements and goals we need to reach, and just do whatever small step is in our current reach.
And one clear criteria is circular economy. Without that, any other plan is doomed to fail. It's not necessary we reach a perfect circular economy in a specific timeframe, but we should avoid to reach a resource trap that force us to go some steps backward before try it again.
Worse case scenario our civilization can crumble, and next time we won't have easy accessible fossil fuels, neither high volume of concentrated scarce materials, so the only path we could take would be extract very disperse sources, concentrate and maintain in the high recycling loop growing in the accessibility to materials over time.
It's just... this alternative plan seems terrible slow. That's the argument because some people think this is the only chance humanity can develop that kind of sustainable high energy civilization.
I don't think that way, but I understand that it's a lot more difficult than this first chance humankind has.
This "plan", that functionally doesn't exist, is like a little kid with a box of crayolas drawing a picture of a rocket ship, and then claiming that's the blueprint for building a rocket that can go to another planet. We have a bunch of people who have been deluded into thinking something insane, like leveling the entire Andes Mountain range to extract the Copper, is a feasible economic endeavor that's going to bring about the electric revolution.
Show me some specifics. Put some numbers to your idea. Stop throwing out meaningless factoids about how much of metal X vs metal Y is in the Earth's crust. You haven't told me anything I don't already know. Tell me how much energy is involved in extracting Lithium from sea water. Tell me about what happens to energy consumption for extraction as you reduce the Lithium concentration in sea water.
Again, this is NOT rhetoric! This should be an adult conversation about the limits of consumption.
So... you are worried that lithium with a limited usage and a long lifespan per product will deplete but you aren't worried about fossil fuel depletion where we currently are a LOT more dependent from fossil fuels, it's used daily based (a disruption generate a great short term problem) and there is no possible recycling of that.
You are clearly using two different ways of thinking for both resources.
We are doing the same that when we went to Moon.
We make a goal (push for circular economy compatible solutions) and make one step at a time to walk the path of the goal.
And the goal is not EV itself, but change every technology to be compatible with a circular economy model.
As I'm sure you know, there are also people that insist in try to make internal combustion vehicles circular economy compatible via alternative fuels. If you are convinced that it's the solution, you can try it. Nobody is gonna stop you trying that.
It's just most people see EV a better solution than e-fuels or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The market is there for you to try and prove others they are wrong.
For me, it's pretty much the same, if we reach sustainability through one path or another. I just know that the true path to a dead end is to maintain the current model.
And from my current knowledge, EV seems like the best solution until now. Well... It's happening. Just in the beginning but it does. Past year 2023, 9.5 million BEV where sold. And the market is growing.
Your alternative is to remain in the same path over endless excuses and bad data, to retain in the fossil fuel industry.
That "plan" will only work until the total fossil fuel production shrinks, that it's just some decades far away from IAE estimations even in the business as usual estimations and later, going down the curve trying to develop what we can do now, in a worse scenario.
Do you understand why now most of the planet disagree with your opinions and consider that the madness is not the electric vehicles but to maintain the old model at all cost?
Probably not.
I recommend you to search the data by yourself. It's clear that you read too much FUD from anti-EV and anti-renewable.
Anyway, what we can think or write doesn't mean nothing. It wont' change the path we are doing. EV is growing because it's working.
If that problems you claim unsolvable turn true, EV will met its end sooner than later.
But I won't put my bets on that. I prefer on bet that humankind will develop a circular economy, and BEV vehicles seems like the right technology to that goal today in that specific market.
Of course, to reach a circular economy we need to change A LOT of things. We are doing steps in a lot of other fields too. Just there is a lot of noise around the EVs.
Offline
Spaniard,
The projection is based in current reserves which seems too conservative. That number is probably underestimated, and even with that, it's more than enough to supply the market for three decades, that it's more than enough to develop any other battery solution if it were needed.
Also that projection is based on certain proportion of lithium per kwh that could change in the future. The number are not rigid. That's not how the market works.
The term "current reserves" means we have conducted a field survey and "we think" that we can get that much metal if 100% of what we thought was there in the ground was actually there AND we actually mine the entire known reserve.
How about the periodic table?
Do you know that theses products uses a lot more scarce elements than lithium?
I'm well aware that all those other listed products use many other more scarce metals than Lithium. That's merely another problem that hasn't been solved. The point is that all of them use Lithium-ion batteries. There are no more energy-dense batteries than Lithium-ion presently being offered.
Of course the solution is always the same. Reduce the consumption with better strategies, recycle the elements so the same material can be used again and again or just replace the element for other better suited in the new scenario when the old is not right anymore.
Unless the global population implodes and everyone left has a greatly reduced quality of life, there will never be a point in time when less material and energy is consumed, if that energy source is short-lived electronically-regulated Lithium-ion batteries.
This "battery everything" energy storage strategy implicitly requires dramatically greater consumption of both energy and high-energy-input metals, not less. Almost 100% of that energy input comes from burning coal, oil, and gas. This is a feature of low energy density materials used for energy storage in inappropriate ways or at an inappropriate scale. Batteries should power watches and cell phones. Real engines are required to power cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft.
2023 Tesla Model 3 Compact: 4,034lbs
2023 Chevrolet Silverado Full Size Truck: 4,410lbs
A Tesla is a subcompact car that weighs as much as full size truck. Tesla's full sized cars are HEAVIER than full size trucks.
If everyone on Earth is going to drive around in one of these entropy machines, exactly where and exactly how are we ever going to use less any energy?
That's the reason because we are trying to make fossil fuels obsolete in first place. Climate and avoid future scarcity.
If every car made is the same weight as a full size truck, fossil fuels are never going to become obsolete. All that metal has to be created from scratch, because it doesn't exist. After that, it has to be recycled, which requires even more energy than mining virgin metal in the case of the batteries, which account for roughly half the weight of the vehicle, which is why nobody does recycling unless they're forced to do it.
That's the reason because we need develop first the best ways to extract with the minimum energy and make the recycling industry to reach very high values. Now is not convenient because the recycling industry is just in the starting stage and we have cheaper sources.
No, what we actually need to do is to recognize and accept that batteries are wildly inappropriate uses of energy storage technology for powering cars. In the mean time, you've outright admitted that the reason we don't mine Lithium from seawater or recycle it at nearly the rate required, is the insane amount of energy required to do it.
So the real lifespan of that lithium will be a lot longer that just looking at the first usage of the material. So a high extraction cost could be compensated by a very long lifespan of the raw material (not the same that the product as the raw material is recycled a lot of times).
There are no "very long lifespan" battery powered consumer products. We deliberately design such products to have short lifespans, so that the consumer constantly has to buy a new one.
Your assertion about recycling can't possibly be based upon current practices, wherein most Lithium-ion batteries end up in landfills, never to be seen or heard from again.
In any case, as I said, we can expect the reserves to increase in the near future. Only after sometime, the estimations will turn more precise and we could estimate of the Bell curve applied to the discovery and extraction of reserves, much like in fossil fuels. In lithium we are just at the start of the curve with unreliable data.
I've little doubt that people will discover more resources over time. The problem is that none of these new discoveries change metals depletion or energy storage realities. All the batteries on planet Earth can store all the electricity consumed on planet Earth, for about 5 minutes. We need to make 288X as many batteries as we have on Earth, at present, so then we can store electricity for 1 lousy day. There has been zero reduction in CO2 as a result, only CO2 increases.
Did you notice that in sea water i said BILLIONS?
Did you notice that I said, "TELL ME HOW MUCH ENERGY IT TAKES TO EXTRACT LITHIUM FROM SEA WATER WHEN ITS CONCENTRATION IS 0.2PPM?"
Let's put real numbers here.
160Wh/kg CATL's battery
400Wh/kg <- Panasonic / Tesla Lithium-ion
64Wh/kg <- 100kWh CATL battery pack energy density
160Wh/kg <- 100kWh Tesla battery pack energy density
625kg <- 100kWh Tesla battery pack weight
1,562.5kg <- 100kWh CATL battery pack weight
Can you see what the problem will be with using this in a car?
CATL's batery weighs as much as an entire car!
They are making NOW the first sodium-ion generation.
Great news!
When can we expect to see cars that weigh as much as semi-trucks?
You are clearly based on biased that, so you obtain wrong conclusions.
Yes, I'm biased towards objective reality. Sometimes reality is ugly and it doesn't conform to our wants. Batteries are not replacing anything, now or any time in the near future. They're merely consuming more and more precious energy resources without being anything remotely approaching a long term fix.
People a lot more informed than us is working on this. The numbers you are saying are wrong. And the resources of fossil fuel are clearly a lot more problematic that these other numbers about EVs.
This is purely your opinion. You're still not showing me any numbers for energy extraction.
The workers in this field is not worried about lithium. There is more than enough lithium for the coming decades, and electric vehicles don't require lithium but batteries, whatever elements it uses. They are plenty of alternatives.
Workers "in this field" (presumably you mean battery development and production), clearly are worried, or they wouldn't be working on Sodium batteries, would they?
They are some worries regardless of the speed of deployment which can spark new peak prices (short term, but still a problem for the industry), but that's a completely different thing.
Yet another false assumption. Prices are a problem for the people who would buy the technology. If they can't afford the technology, it doesn't matter how theoretically "great" it might be. Gold and Platinum batteries may as well be vaporware for that very reason.
It's matter of money. The more expensive the elements are, the more investment will be in the battery market what will turn into better reduction, recycling or new battery alternatives.
BINGO! All this stuff is absurdly expensive because it requires absurd amounts of energy, labor, and capital.
That's how EVERYTHING works in the market, including that whole list of technologies that you mentioned before. Including electronics.
Correct. We quit using vacuum tubes and transistors because they couldn't provide the computing power required. We quit using batteries in cars in the early 1900s because they couldn't provide the energy required.
If humanity were unable to find substitutes for current electronics, as an example, this technological civilization would be doomed anyway, regardless of electric cars and everything around that.
How was humanity able to function for thousands of years without microchips?
We need to move forward finding substitutes when they are needed. That's the main reason I personally doesn't understand why are you here. That kind of fixed mentality, basically luddite, is incompatible with a long space program.
We tried using batteries in cars before. All the people who weren't luddites moved on to internal combustion engines. Internal combustion engine cars came after battery powered cars. People who want to return to using what the automotive industry discarded 100 years ago as unworkable are the true luddites.
A long space program requires a long term civilization, and a long term civilization require a circular economy with "100%" material recycling.
A long term space program requires people to stop using circular logic and circular reasoning.
Understand that 100% is not necessary done with just direct recycling which is impossible, but with a recuperation for disperse sources in a long term endless loop. Because disperse are more expensive, to make numbers works we need that the direct recycling reach as highest numbers as possible, so disperse materials will need only to replace a small fraction of the total.
If we need 100% recycling, but that's impossible, at least according to you, then maybe we should try to move forward with things that are possible.
We know that the model works because nature has done before. The question is not if it works. It does. The question is if humankind will be able to replicate the model in a high developed civilization fashion (the old one based integrated on nature also works... just it's not desirable)
Nature doesn't store energy using metals. Nature stores energy in carbohydrates. That's another word for hydro-carbon. If you want to go back to something in keeping with nature, then it will involve hydrocarbons.
And that model clearly pushes for a change in our energy model among other things. Electrification is a step in the right direction as it's compatible with a circular economy. Fossil fuels don't.
Electrification is compatible with circular reasoning, but nature endlessly uses and recycles Hydrogen and Carbon, not electricity. Nature doesn't mine and refine metals.
I'm not an expert of copper, besides you are doing a inflexible mentality.
Maybe better technologies of extraction will make it profitable. Maybe batteries (like sodium) will replace copper with aluminum in cells. Maybe they are other resources there that have more sense to extract. Maybe the recycling will be a more economic solution.
How knows whats the right path? We will try everyone and the right ones will triumph. Probably multiple does as they are compatible.
You don't need to be an expert in Copper, Spaniard. You need to open up your eyes and start counting.
The madness is to don't develop (not even try) a solution and walk a path we know for sure is a dead end. That's fossil fuels.
Madness is refusing to accept that the energy density of chemical reactions between Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen, is two orders of magnitude in excess of any electrochemical reactions using metals that we know how to repeatably use in a practical way.
Yeah. It does happens when there is NO demand. TODAY.
Last lithium related infrastructure is very recent in construction, as the high demand for lithium is also very recent. The same could be said for sodium.
Just wait and see. If sodium-ion demand soar (and I see strong indications that this will happen in coming years) the facilities will be constructed in year timescale.
It's not like the raw source, sodium chloride, pretty much sea salt, is lacking.
I've been "waiting and seeing" for more than 20 years now.
You are clearly using bad data.
Using historical precedent is using bad data?
If there is a reason for sodium-ion to have modest demand is that lithium is plenty, so there is no need for sodium. If the price of lithium goes up strongly again, sodium-ion manufacture will rise quickly if there isn't unknown problems.
Definitely, if there is no hidden problems, sodium-ion seems a better solution of stationary storage energy than lithium. Volumetric density is clearly not a problem for stationary storage. And if that market explodes, that will also push for better sodium-ion batteries how could be enough to make it a viable candidate for high performance vehicles when now is lacking.
Let's hope, but again, there is a major problem, I pointed it out to you, then you both asserted there is no problem with Lithium while stating that people are actively developing Sodium based batteries. Both can't be true at the same time if they're both aimed at the same market space.
Well. I did already X-D
You provided a bunch of contradictory opinions with no actual numbers related to the energy input required to make the batteries.
Because it's a non negotiable long term goal. Circular economy is required to achieve a long term civilization. Other way, you will exhaust the resources and crumble. It's pure math.
Circular economy is circular reasoning.
After hundreds of millions of years, nature hasn't exhausted its supply of Hydrogen and Carbon resources. If there was something worth recycling, then perhaps nature is providing clues to you about what to recycle.
Materials, except on nuclear reaction or atmospheric looses, are always there. Exhaust is just a name for "reduced accessibility", as every atom is still there. Just in a open loop model, like fossil fuels, they are more and more difficult to regain the original state more convenient for our civilization.
What's prevented us from closing the loop on CO2 recycling?
That's what a circular economy concept is. To reach a level of energy requirement enough low to be able to close the circle of 100% reusing materials and support our own energy infrastructure and everything else running. Other way we will lack energy to recycling 100% and the accessibility will go down, which will turn in less access to materials over time until crumble.
You can't do that with energy sources and storage materials that are 10X to 1,000X less energy dense than the hydrocarbon and nuclear alternatives.
You've mentioned "circular economy" at least a half dozen times. It sounds a lot like "the way of the future"- in the same way that it was used by Leonardo DiCaprio when he was playing Howard Hughes in a movie, a sad depiction of what happened to a brilliant aerospace engineer, as he slowly slipped into madness towards the end of his life.
So... you are worried that lithium with a limited usage and a long lifespan per product will deplete but you aren't worried about fossil fuel depletion where we currently are a LOT more dependent from fossil fuels, it's used daily based (a disruption generate a great short term problem) and there is no possible recycling of that.
You are clearly using two different ways of thinking for both resources.
Actually, I'm not. If you've read any of what I've written elsewhere on this forum, then you'd know that I'm in favor of using solutions that don't depend on massive quantities of scarce materials, amounts of money that don't exist, or plans that will take 100 to 1,000 years to fully implement.
All this "circular economy" insanity is doing is blowing through our remaining hydrocarbon fuel supplies at ridiculous rates.
For me, it's pretty much the same, if we reach sustainability through one path or another. I just know that the true path to a dead end is to maintain the current model.
How is burning insane quantities of fuels to mine and refine scarce metals not a continuation of what we've been doing?
Your alternative is to remain in the same path over endless excuses and bad data, to retain in the fossil fuel industry.
You clearly haven't read any of what I've written.
Do you understand why now most of the planet disagree with your opinions and consider that the madness is not the electric vehicles but to maintain the old model at all cost?
A falsely attributed opinion never expressed by me is not an argument for or against anything. It's a form of gas-lighting, but nothing more.
Anyway, what we can think or write doesn't mean nothing. It wont' change the path we are doing. EV is growing because it's working.
EV is growing the rate of the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. It hasn't accomplished anything else. You, like so many other people, conflate activity with accomplishment. If EVs were accomplishing anything, then hydrocarbon fuel consumption would go down, not up. The data on that is absolutely crystal clear.
If that problems you claim unsolvable turn true, EV will met its end sooner than later.
Basic math is a very funny thing. It doesn't care about anyone's opinions. The basic math of both hydrocarbon energy consumption and total energy consumption is only trending in one direction.
But I won't put my bets on that. I prefer on bet that humankind will develop a circular economy, and BEV vehicles seems like the right technology to that goal today in that specific market.
Whenever you finally figure out that we're doing the exact opposite of what you claim we're doing, I think you're going to be very upset with the results.
Of course, to reach a circular economy we need to change A LOT of things. We are doing steps in a lot of other fields too. Just there is a lot of noise around the EVs.
If you feel that we need to change most aspects of how humanity uses materials and energy in order to achieve this circular economy you're so obsessed with, then you should expect that to take a very long time.
Offline
I'm not gonna spend more time in a endless loop of monologues.
I will just reply this as an example.
160Wh/kg CATL's battery
400Wh/kg <- Panasonic / Tesla Lithium-ion64Wh/kg <- 100kWh CATL battery pack energy density
160Wh/kg <- 100kWh Tesla battery pack energy density625kg <- 100kWh Tesla battery pack weight
1,562.5kg <- 100kWh CATL battery pack weight
I don't know if you read bad data websites or just you have invented the numbers by yourself.
That numbers aren't right.
First, the 400 wh/kg I guess could come from Musk claim that they will reach that density in the near future. I don't have notice that their current cells went so far, but in any case, any cell that reach that density are NMC, NCA or maybe a solid/semisolid state battery, not a LFP battery as I said, so that's force the argument
Now some real data:
https://www.batterydesign.net/tesla-lfp-model-3/
Energy density = 125Wh/kg
I assume this is the pack.
Well. Just take another model. The previous is probably an worse case.
https://www.batterydesign.net/2022-tesla-model-y-4680/
Pack = 161Wh/kg
Cell = 244Wh/kg
Here a different source. Just for the cell
https://www.batemo.com/products/batemo- … data-popup
Cell = 250 wh/kg
As they are multiple generations, type of batteries, different measurements... this becomes very complex to have precise values until you fix a reasonable comparison.
Still, it's just interesting to see
For example, this is the data from the same source than before about the sodium-ion car.
https://www.batterydesign.net/sehol-e10x-sodium-ion/
Pack = 120Wh/kg
Cell = 145 Wh/kg
If you force the sources, you can obtain the double density for cell. Still, the density of the pack is clearly NOT as you said.
AND... this cell has lower performance than CATL sodium battery announce.
There is NO data of CATL sodium ion packs, because they are NO CATL sodium-ion packs yet up to my knowledge.
Still, if we project the 120 wh/kg of the pack to a 100 kwh battery we obtain 833 kg.
So... Again a bogus claim.
--- EDIT ---
I also adds another link about "EV increase fossil fuel consumption"
https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-ca … -slash-it/
Well... Bloomberg disagree with you.
Last edited by Spaniard (2024-03-13 11:48:45)
Offline
LA Times - First EV sales decline in a decade; hiccup or lasting trend?
ABC News - Electric vehicle sales are slowing. No need for panic yet, insiders say.
There are 51 electric models -- and counting -- on the market now.
The recent headlines for electric vehicles have been brutal: Sales are dropping. Momentum is slipping. Consumers are souring on the technology.
Experts say, however, that 2024 may be the year to finally pull the plug on gasoline-powered cars and trucks.
"Five years ago we did not have the array of EVs we have now. They account for 10% of the market," John Voelcker, a contributing editor at Car and Driver, told ABC News. "The growth rate may flatten ... but the cost of EVs will continue to come down."
Price slashing by Tesla and its rivals has definitely juiced sales of battery-powered vehicles. In November, dealers increased the discounts on EVs, with the average transaction price (ATP) dropping 8.9%, according to Cox Automotive. EV incentives totaled less than 2% of ATP a year ago.
New models like the Kia EV9, Chevy Blazer EV and Volvo EX30 could also help convince Americans to permanently ditch their V6 and V8 engines.
Moreover, the decision by nearly every automaker to adopt the North American Charging Standard (NACS) port, which Tesla developed, will likely improve the charging experience and ameliorate range anxiety. Voelcker, though bullish on EVs, argued that automakers and the industry overall may have overestimated Americans' initial fascination with them.
"Some of the manufacturers got overly ambitious," Voelcker said. "It may be difficult to get to 50% [of new EV sales] by 2030. We've moved beyond the early adopters now."
According to Ivan Drury, Edmunds' director of insights, automakers -- Tesla included -- are selling EVs at a loss. The move by Hertz and other rental car companies to stop adding EVs to their fleets has contributed to sluggish sales, he argued.
"EVs are getting harder to move," Drury told ABC News. "Earlier in the year they were still going for above MSRP. Once the average interest rate hit 7% EVs began to linger on the lot and now require a lot more work from automakers and dealers to sell."
Ford announced in December it would cut 2024 production targets for its F-150 Lightning pickup truck, building 50% fewer units each week. Jim Farley, the company's CEO, cited weaker-than-expected demand and a patchy national charging network for the decision. Ford has sold slightly more than 20,000 Lightnings since the end of November.
Last month, German automaker Audi said it would pare back its electric vehicle rollout in the coming year as growth slows, according to Bloomberg. After repeated delays, the company's Q6 e-tron will finally enter production in the second quarter of 2024.
"Every EV on the market is being battered by bad news," said Drury. "Nothing is meeting expectations. A new set of buyers now mean a new set of concerns."
Ed Kim, president and chief analyst at AutoPacific, predicts EV sales in the U.S. will reach 1.5 million units in 2024 and 2 million by 2025, a slightly more conservative outlook compared to other forecasters.
"We're not seeing the level of frenzied activity we saw earlier. There's a slight tapering of demand and partially a market correction," Kim told ABC News. "The rate of adoption has tailed off a little bit but it's still growing. This is not a catastrophe for EVs. Don't get panicked yet."
He added, "A lot of automakers overestimated demand for high-priced EVs. But that does not mean EV demand is dropping."
In fact, the Tesla Model Y was one of the top-selling vehicles in all of 2023, a huge triumph for EVs, Kim pointed out. Tesla, which commands 60% of the electric vehicle auto market, will roll out styling updates and substantial improvements to the Model Y and Model 3 next year, a move to ward off the competition, Kim said.
"We have an EV from a manufacturer that didn't exist 15 years ago and it will be either the first or second top-selling non-pickup vehicle in 2023," he said. "That's shocking especially as EV demand is leveling off."
Kim and Voelcker agreed that the launch of more three-row electric SUVs, a top priority for families with young children, will be needed to shore up sales. The EV9, Lucid Gravity, VinFast VF9 and ID.Buzz could fill the void.
"2024 will be the year we see three-row EVs coming to the marketplace," said Kim.
Voelcker said the Volvo EX30, a compact SUV that starts under $35,000, would be a significant player in the market, giving mainstream Americans access to an affordable EV with 275 miles of range.
"The EX30 could be significant," he said.
Voelcker, however, doubted that the Cybertruck, Tesla's angular electric pickup, would sway traditional truck buyers.
"Call me when Tesla produces the first 10,000 units," he said. "I continue to think the Cybertruck will be extremely difficult to get into volume production."
Brands that have been more cautious on electrification are readying their first EVs for consumers. Jaguar Land Rover, for example, recently opened pre-orders for its electric Range Rover SUV.
"It's going to be a real Range Rover, meaning it's fully off-road capable ... and it will address all the functional needs of a Range Rover without compromise, plus deliver on performance," Joe Eberhardt, president and CEO of Jaguar Land Rover North America, told ABC News. "Up to this point all the competitors out there have made compromises. We won't make any."
Tyson Jominy, vice president of data and analytics at J.D. Power, anticipates EV market share to rise to 12% next year -- though that percentage could be higher, he suggested. The Inflation Reduction Act negatively impacted sales by slashing the number of electrics eligible for federal tax credits, he asserted. The lack of cheap models also persuaded consumers to stay away.
"EV sales will go up next year, but there are challenges," he said.
Demand is already dropping in California, of all possible places, but demand isn't actually dropping, because "we have beliefs and feelings and stuff". You can't force something into existence that fundamentally doesn't work. Personal fantasies over techno-gadgets are fine, but not where economics is involved. As the article states, all major automotive manufacturers, to include Tesla, are selling EVs at a net loss. You can do that for awhile, but not forever.
Offline
Demand is already dropping in California, of all possible places, but demand isn't actually dropping, because "we have beliefs and feelings and stuff". You can't force something into existence that fundamentally doesn't work. Personal fantasies over techno-gadgets are fine, but not where economics is involved. As the article states, all major automotive manufacturers, to include Tesla, are selling EVs at a net loss. You can do that for awhile, but not forever.
They are a lot of press like that in the past.
As soon as a couple months of bad data shows less numbers, they create a "news".
This is not even a year-to-year data.
Sell at loss... I hear that bogus claim for near a decade already. Pretty much from the beginning. It's obvious that it's a false claim or they would broke already.
Like this
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/10/tesla-b … -sold.html
Pretty much the same claim over and over and over. And at least on that days, Tesla burned cash as crazy. It's not that they sell each car at loss, but they invest so much money into expansion that they went into loses year after year.
So the value of the company raises a lot, even if their net income were negative.
After so many times reading the same claim and showing the same result the next year, as you can understand, I'm a bit skeptic about it.
Offline
Ngl, it's quite funny that you're arguing about car batteries, when cars are irrelevant to the maintainence of modern civilisation. Our transportation infrastructure is based on ships and barges and trains, and trucks that we only really need for last mile delivery. Losing cars doesn't knock out anything foundational. The key question is whether we have non fossil fuel alternatives for *those*, and electrification of rail is definitely proven technology at this point. Besides the use of catenaries, ships and barges and trains are less constrained in weight and volume than trucks and cars are, so sodium ion batteries may be a workable option there too idk. Liquid air ought to be as well.
FWIW on energy costs for mining and refining materials, the embodied energy figures i can find for copper are 12 kWh/kg... with 37% being recycled. Call it 19 kWh if we assume the recycled is negligible energy? The price of copper has been jaggedly rising over the last two decades, it's about $9/kg. If we're getting energy for say $100 per kWh then, at least 20% of the cost of the virgin copper is from the energy used to refine it. What happens when the energy needed goes up significantly because we're using even worse grades of ore?
Anyway, I do hope sodium ion works out, sodium is one of the few metals that are viable to extract from seawater...
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
This article from the Manhattan Institute is long to read, but provides a wealth of information.
https://manhattan.institute/article/ele … ible-dream
Suffice to say, it will be very difficult and expensive to replace the current vehicle fleet with EVs.
The energy cost of producing copper was about the same in 2010 as it was in 1930. But energy invested in mining and ore benefication has increased substantially. This indicates declining ore grade. The energy cost of copper has increased dramatically since 1970. Between 1930 and 1970, globalisation allowed access to superior ore grades. Technological improvements also reduced the energy to produce metallic copper from ores. What has clearly happened since then is depletion reducing ore grades. Globalisation and technological improvements are clearly hitting diminishing returns and depletion is now the dominant dynamic. This raises a problem for the energy transition, as it is presently envisaged.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-03-13 16:50:02)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Terraformer,
What I would like to know is why some people are so utterly fixated on "solving" a problem that, at the very most, might represent about 8% of the total energy consumption. I think the answer is that those people, as the late great George Carlin said, are "symbol-minded". They're stupefied by symbols. It's like they've been afflicted by some sort of Harry Potter spell or something.
If you tell such people that the forest is on fire, their whimsical response is to run to the nearest stream, cup their hands together, and then run back to the fire, whilst losing half the water in their hands on the way back, but they're acting as if they're accomplishing something. They certainly are doing something, but they're nuts if they think they're putting the fire out that way.
Sea Story Time...
When I was a 17 year old kid standing fire watch on my first ship, I had this Japanese welder repairing our ship, who I was assigned to provide a fire watch for. I'm sure he was early 40s, maybe early 50s. Great guy. He spoke a bit of English and I spoke a bit of Japanese, so we talked a bit during his breaks and he told me about his job and home life. He accidentally started a fire, as often happens during welding. It wasn't a big deal to me, but responding appropriately was. Mind you, I've just completed basic firefighting training at this point, so I've put out fires engulfing entire compartments. My first real fire aboard ship was rather unimpressive, except for the speed at which it spread due to a judgement error. I yell at him and motion for him to get away from the flames as I pull the pin on my fire extinguisher. I know he can hear me because it's fairly quiet, but he's still madly slapping at the fire with a rag that also caught on fire, in a vain attempt to put it out. Doing that only resulted in his arm / clothing catching fire. At this point, my extinguisher was ready, so I immediately pulled him away with my other hand and put him out. I then put the insulation out that caught fire. After inspecting to make sure the fire was truly out and reporting it so a Damage Control specialist could assess it, I grabbed him again to move him away from the CO2 so he didn't choke to death. We were in a rather confined space- a storage locker above a void space near the bow of the ship. Other than singing his eyebrows, as I look him over there appears to be no damage to him, not even a first degree burn. I then breathed a sigh of relief. I thought I was going to have someone seriously injured on my first day on the job. His welding clothing "saved him" for the second or two that his arm was on fire, but man alive he was truly "waving a firearm around". The entire incident was done and over with inside of 5 seconds. That was my first assignment after reporting for duty, which is why the memory was / is so vivid. I always knew fire was a possibility, but that day it became an inevitability in my mind. All that mattered afterwards was responding swiftly and correctly. Some period of time later, after the repairs were complete, our ship was refloated in the dry dock, and we eventually got underway for the first time in about six months for a brief shakedown cruise.
So... What went wrong there?
When you're completely fixated on something, to the point that you cannot see what's happening, you can put yourself in real danger for no benefit to yourself or anyone else. That is why we have fire watches. It's the opposite of performative art. It's not "just for show". It's recognizing that some activities have real danger associated with them, that cannot be ignored with any amount of belief or bravado. Yes, it's boring as hell 99.99% of the time, but the job is still important to do.
Doing due diligence on the basic math is the same way. Asserting that everything will work out is not the same as knowing what must transpire for that thorny situation to be resolved in your favor.
Why is this a problem?
We're running short of fuel to burn, so let's take that process to the next level in our "throwing crap at the wall" sideshow. I'm watching a Chinese fire drill take place, but I don't see any real accomplishment. Every day, I've read about a revolutionary new battery technology just around the corner, for the past 20 years now. Maybe you can't throw crap at the wall if you expect a desirable result. Maybe the fundamentals really do matter.
Sometimes I wonder if everyone was out sick the day they taught multiplication in grammar school.
Look at how much metal we produced in all of human history, figure out how much more is needed to make everything electric, and then figure out how many more decades of coal, oil, and gas we're going to burn through to obtain that much brand new metal, or simply accept that the basic math and physics which have prevented us from doing that already are quite real, so an actual solution is required.
The numbers involved are huge, but that simple pocket calculator can still give you the correct answers when you know what numbers to punch them in.
8,000,000,000,000kg of Copper * 12,000Wh/kg = 96,000,000,000,000,000Wh
96,000,000,000,000,000Wh = 96,000TWh
US annual electricity consumption: 4,000TWh
24 years of the entire US annual electrical energy consumption to get 8 billion tons of Copper. I guess the fact that all known reserves don't amount to 8 billion tons isn't a problem, though. Since we cannot recycle something which does not exist, that energy requirement figure is also pure fantasy. We need even more energy, just to get the metal. After that, the metal has to be turned into something useful, like an electric motor or transformer or charging cable.
Why do electrical engineers prefer to use Copper instead of Aluminum?
Obtaining the amount of virgin Aluminum metal with equivalent ampacity to 8 blllion tons of Copper requires even more energy input than Copper. At present, there's not enough Copper or Aluminum metal on the planet to recycle to make all this new electrical equipment. It's not to smash anyone's electric circular economy dreams, it's a simple energy economics issue. Recycling doesn't count for anything until AFTER you have the required metal for this all-electric future. Almost all of the 700 million tons of Copper ever mined during the past 6,000 years of Copper mining is still in active use, to the present day.
Will we need to build even 1 new power plant to obtain the energy required mine that much Copper or Aluminum?
I think we will. In point of fact, I know we will. I'm not a guessing about that, either.
Where will all that new energy come from?
It obviously won't come from green energy machines that don't exist because we've yet to obtain the metal to make them, so it has to come from burning wildly extravagant amounts of coal, oil, and gas.
Why doesn't this sound like such a great plan to me?
It hasn't lowered our CO2 emissions one iota, that's why CO2 emissions keep increasing as more and more "green energy" is created by burning more coal. If we somehow managed to build all this green energy machinery, I don't think emissions would merely decrease at some point in the future, until the resources are exhausted. It really looks to me like we're planning to fail, because we're not accepting that the basic math problems involved are very real. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but the numbers involved are huge and the implications are stark and ugly.
I also hope Sodium-ion batteries work out, because there isn't enough Lithium on this entire planet to come within a country mile of meeting our energy storage needs if everything is electric. The people developing Sodium-ion intuitively know that Lithium is going to run out long before demand does, and that no present Lithium-ion batteries can be readily recycled.
Lithium resources are laughably more limited than oil. Every year we consumed more than 5 billion tons of oil. If there are only 200 billion tons of Lithium metal available in sea water, then it could be gone in a human lifetime. Rather than being an energy sink like Lithium, oil provides the energy to make and use Lithium-based batteries, as well as pretty much all other technology, to begin with. It does that so well because it is so energy dense, relative to any kind of battery.
Whilst Lithium is 0.2ppm in seawater, CO2 in air is 400ppm+, and the ocean CO2 concentration can go as high as 16,000ppm.
Using both our powers of observation, and understanding of power laws, will it be easier to extract and recycle CO2 to synthesize new liquid hydrocarbon fuels, or will it be easier to extract the Lithium?
If I didn't hold any dogmatic climate religious beliefs about this, then I would merely "guess" that CO2 extraction would be almost infinitely easier with up to 80,000X greater concentration. Sodium is around 10,500ppm in seawater, so maybe the boffins developing that tech figured it'll be easier as well. I'm just waiting for the Sodium people to blame "Big Lithium" for their battery tech not working as planned, though.
Offline
Terraformer,
Do you find major fault with any of the figures I've come up with, or do you simply not like the aesthetics or implications of what I've stated?
I'm curious as to why some of these more obvious problems with trying to electrify everything are not something that concerns most people who advocate for this. If we get this wrong, then as Spaniard alluded to earlier, it's going to be real hard to make a second pass at solving the problem, and those who are left won't appreciate what we've condemned them to at all.
It's not absolutely impossible to do complete electrification, given enough time, but what cost is too great?
What would have to happen before you determined that what we were attempting to do wasn't working as intended?
For example, if we did have to level the Andes Mountains to get the Copper, would that be an indicator that it's time to at least consider other approaches?
Offline
