Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[Doodski]

The video above makes a good case for Hydrogen vehicles?

 

[samsa]

There seem to be two points:

1. You need to account for carbon emissions in generating the electricity used by a BEV, not just tailpipe emissions. (To be fair, you ought to include the carbon emissions in pumping the oil, shipping it halfway around the world, refining it into gasoline and then transporting it to where the ICE vehicle fills up. But who wants to be fair?)
2. You need to account for carbon emissions in the raw materials and manufacture of the vehicle. This (he claims) is vastly greater for the BEV than for an ICE vehicle.

The first point is uncontroversial, and has been discussed upthread. The BEV still wins on this score both because the Grid is (too slowly) being decarbonized and because the BEV is vastly more efficient in its use of energy than any ICE engine.

The second point sounds wildly implausible to me. What is it about BEVs that makes them vastly more carbon-intensive to build? Every study I've seen (e.g. this one) says that the opposite is true.

Edit: This is the actual study, whose brief summary was linked-to above.

 

[Doodski]

What is it about BEVs that makes them vastly more carbon-intensive to build?

It seemed he was alluding to the rare materials and the energy intensive extraction of them. I've seen what the cobalt harvesters do in Africa and it looks like a family operation of fathers and sons digging in the dirt all day for a few handfuls of cobalt. That is very simple to say the least. Get those people some excavators and some proper machinery... geeech... That aspect of rare earths mining is disconcerting.

 

[samsa]

It seemed he was alluding to the rare materials and the energy intensive extraction of them. I've seen what the cobalt harvesters do in Africa and it looks like a family operation of fathers and sons digging in the dirt all day for a few handfuls of cobalt. That is very simple to say the least. Get those people some excavators and some proper machinery... geeech... That aspect of rare earths mining is disconcerting.

A depressing, ugly business, to be sure. But not a terribly carbon-intensive one. Moving away from Cobalt and Nickel in our battery technology is certainly imperative. On that score, you probably want to look at the platinum, palladium and rhodium in catalytic converters.

 

[Doodski]

On that score, you probably want to look at the platinum, palladium and rhodium in catalytic converters.

There was a severe theft issue with catalytic converters in the city I am @ and the coppers caught one guy with several hundred of them and the theft of them wondrously ceased. A single guy in a city of a million was the major source of the thefts. I have not seen the extraction methods of platinum, palladium and rhodium in low standards countries.

 

[Ron Texas]

There are many potential lithium deposits, but it will take years to exploit them. The current situation is governments are aiming for a rapid adoption of EV's which will exceed the supply of lithium for the near future. Costs will be high which limits demand for EV's. The president of Citroen has said there will be no low-priced cars. One Stelantis executive has opined the entire industry could capsize.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There are many potential lithium deposits, but it will take years to exploit them. The current situation is governments are aiming for a rapid adoption of EV's which will exceed the supply of lithium for the near future. Costs will be high which limits demand for EV's. The president of Citroen has said there will be no low-priced cars. One Stelantis executive has opined the entire industry could capsize.

Even expensive EV's eventually have lower Total Cost of Ownership vs IC cars. But you have an up front cost hurdle to meet, and in the case of older people they might not live long enough to come out on the deal. Despite Tesla aiming for a basic good mid-sized sedan at $35k it hasn't happened. It was intended to eventually be the model 3. Instead model 3's have gotten more expensive and demand leaves you waiting near a year even at that high cost.

 

[mrlawng9]

The case for hydrogen has sadly been shut down. Mostly because car manufacturers have over invested and over extended themselves into BEVs. A lot of the research saying hyrdogen can never be clean has been funded by those same OEMs (though the attribution is not obvious). Yet, we already have the infrastructure for hydrogen. Converting existing gas stations to hydrogen will cost trillions and trillions less than creating EV infrastructure. Even less when you start to consider the only efficient way to recharge EVs is in the actual road infrastructure vs recharing stations. I'm really glad someone posted Graham's video and hope this perspective can gain some much needed traction.

 

[Doodski]

There are many potential lithium deposits, but it will take years to exploit them.

You got that right. All the prospective mining related planning for deposits seems to be in pre-financing stages and that means it could be several years at best before shovels are in the dirt. One nice aspect that I see in my region that is the heart of oil country is that the same in-situ technology that has been developed can be used for pre-existing salt dome formations where lithium can be extracted as a brine and is currently extracted but re-pumped back in-situ because there has been no market for lithium to speak of. So the same trained personnel and machinery can be used over again. A recycling of materials.

 

[Doodski]

The case for hydrogen has sadly been shut down. Mostly because car manufacturers have over invested and over extended themselves into BEVs. A lot of the research saying hyrdogen can never be clean has been funded by those same OEMs (though the attribution is not obvious). Yet, we already have the infrastructure for hydrogen. Converting existing gas stations to hydrogen will cost trillions and trillions less than creating EV infrastructure. Even less when you start to consider the only efficient way to recharge EVs is in the actual road infrastructure vs recharing stations. I'm really glad someone posted Graham's video and hope this perspective can gain some much needed traction.

Where I live hydrogen is going ahead and shovels are in the ground at this time for developing hydrogen production facilities. There are claims that hydrogen is going to be a viable option for vehicles. Long distance trucking and trains for example.

 

[samsa]

There are many potential lithium deposits, but it will take years to exploit them. The current situation is governments are aiming for a rapid adoption of EV's which will exceed the supply of lithium for the near future.

Lithium is not the bottleneck in ramping up battery production. Cobalt and (especially) nickel are.

Costs will be high which limits demand for EV's. The president of Citroen has said there will be no low-priced cars. One Stelantis executive has opined the entire industry could capsize.

Auto executives always fight tooth and nail against tighter environmental regulation (arguing that it will lead to economic apocalypse). Its. What. They. Do.

 

[mrlawng9]

Where I live hydrogen is going ahead and shovels are in the ground at this time for developing hydrogen production facilities. There are claims that hydrogen is going to be a viable option for vehicles. Long distance trucking and trains for example.

Yes, thanks for that context. I should have said the case for passenger vehicles. Hydrogen is still very much on the table for trucks, trains, planes, and other commercial transportaiton categories. I hope it gets more visibility for PVs again soon too.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Where I live hydrogen is going ahead and shovels are in the ground at this time for developing hydrogen production facilities. There are claims that hydrogen is going to be a viable option for vehicles. Long distance trucking and trains for example.

In recent years the issue is the cheapest way to make hydrogen is a process using natural gas. So your CO2 emissions aren't lowered that much. Making hydrogen from solar avoids this, but costs more money. Plus storage of hydrogen isn't quite a solved problem yet.

 

[Doodski]

In recent years the issue is the cheapest way to make hydrogen is a process using natural gas. So your CO2 emissions aren't lowered that much. Making hydrogen from solar avoids this, but costs more money. Plus storage of hydrogen isn't quite a solved problem yet.

The local hydrogen operation is going to pump the carbon back into the ground in-situ. In-situ steam technology has been used for some years for oil extraction so the technology for extraction is now being used for refining hydrogen and sinking carbon underground where it will become a solid.

 

[Ron Texas]

Lithium is not the bottleneck in ramping up battery production. Cobalt and (especially) nickel are.


Auto executives always fight tooth and nail against tighter environmental regulation (arguing that it will lead to economic apocalypse). Its. What. They. Do.

Actually, it's all three minerals. And even if it was only nickel my main point is the same, shortages are happening because governments are setting goals for EV's which are working out to be unreachable. As for your calling auto executives a bunch of liars out to destroy the earth, that's hardly an argument any grown up would buy into.

 

[samsa]

Actually, it's all three minerals. And even if it was only nickel my main point is the same, shortages are happening because governments are setting goals for EV's which are working out to be unreachable.

There are alternatives to nickel and cobalt. LFP batteries (as in Tesla's Standard Range Model 3), for instance.

The only alternative to lithium, at the moment, is sodium, and getting sodium-based batteries to not explode is an engineering challenge. But lithium prices are not going through the roof (like nickel prices are) because lithium supplies are adequate to meet demand. If you really think there's going to be a shortfall, I'd suggest investing in lithium futures (but that's another thread). Good luck with that...

As for your calling auto executives a bunch of liars out to destroy the earth, that's hardly an argument any grown up would buy into.

If the shoe fits ...

The CEOs of Volkswagen, Ford and GM are saying precisely the opposite. For the obvious reason that they feel that they can compete in the EV world, unlike Stellantis and Citroen.

 

[Inner Space]

Auto executives always fight tooth and nail against tighter environmental regulation (arguing that it will lead to economic apocalypse). Its. What. They. Do.

As for your calling auto executives a bunch of liars out to destroy the earth, that's hardly an argument any grown up would buy into.

I have followed the auto industry all my life, and for the sake of this argument, would suggest taking out the word "environmental", because it artificially limits the discussion to a narrow part of the scope, and gets people's dander up by feeling pointed. Let's just say: "Auto executives always fight tooth and nail against tighter regulation."

Which is absolutely true. Comically true, in fact. I remember when seat belts were going to ruin Detroit. They were the straw that would break the camel's back. Every single thing since then was the same. Always the final tipping point. And that stuff was historically about safety, more than pollution. Or maybe 50-50.

I never understood the executives' attitude. As it happened, they hit every target (because they had to) and aimed at a few of their own, and cars got better and better, to the point where now cars are unbelievably, unrecognizably, amazingly better than they used to be. Compared to the first car I had, my latest makes eleven times more power, and gets better gas mileage. I think the executives should have been bold and proud. But they weren't.

 

[Ron Texas]

There are alternatives to nickel and cobalt. LFP batteries (as in Tesla's Standard Range Model 3), for instance.

The only alternative to lithium, at the moment, is sodium, and getting sodium-based batteries to not explode is an engineering challenge. But lithium prices are not going through the roof (like nickel prices are) because lithium supplies are adequate to meet demand. If you really think there's going to be a shortfall, I'd suggest investing in lithium futures (but that's another thread). Good luck with that...

You are shifting your position. First you say the problem isn't lithium and now you say it is. That should be enough to strip you of any credibility.

 

[samsa]

You are shifting your position. First you say the problem isn't lithium and now you say it is. That should be enough to strip you of any credibility.

Deep breath. Read what I wrote.

There is no lithium shortage. Which is good, because at the moment, there's no good alternative to lithium.

There is a shortage of nickel (and to a lesser extent cobalt). That is reflected clearly in what's happening to the prices of those minerals. On the other hand, there are alternatives to nickel and cobalt ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

The local hydrogen operation is going to pump the carbon back into the ground in-situ. In-situ steam technology has been used for some years for oil extraction so the technology for extraction is now being used for refining hydrogen and sinking carbon underground where it will become a solid.

Is that cost effective currently?