Subject: Re: Thinking Too Simply
What do you mean by "temperatures rose because those emissions adsorbed solar radiation and reduced temperatures"?

Think of sulfur dioxide emissions as an "anti-greenhouse" product. Whereas methane and CO2 aid in trapping solar heat, thus increasing temperatures, SO2 particle repel solar radiation, thus reducing temperatures. When the lows governing the sulfur content of fuels were passed, this wasn't a consideration. It has turned out to be one.

You state: "There is no real constraint on the amount of raw materials available for making both (EV's and hybrids) ....

The studies I've read state the exact opposite. For the scale envisioned for EV adoption, there are huge constraints in supplying the needed supplies. Many studies - this May 2021 IEA report is only one.

https://www.iea.org/reports/th...

From the Executive Summary:

An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen.

The types of mineral resources used vary by technology. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are crucial to battery performance, longevity and energy density. Rare earth elements are essential for permanent magnets that are vital for wind turbines and EV motors. Electricity networks need a huge amount of copper and aluminium, with copper being a cornerstone for all electricity-related technologies.

Which sectors do these increases come from? In climate-driven scenarios, mineral demand for use in EVs and battery storage is a major force, growing at least thirty times to 2040. Lithium sees the fastest growth, with demand growing by over 40 times in the SDS by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt and nickel (around 20-25 times). The expansion of electricity networks means that copper demand for grid lines more than doubles over the same period.

The rise of low-carbon power generation to meet climate goals also means a tripling of mineral demand from this sector by 2040. Wind takes the lead, bolstered by material-intensive offshore wind. Solar PV follows closely, due to the sheer volume of capacity that is added. Hydropower, biomass and nuclear make only minor contributions given their comparatively low mineral requirements. In other sectors, the rapid growth of hydrogen as an energy carrier underpins major growth in demand for nickel and zirconium for electrolysers, and for platinum-group metals for fuel cells.

To meet the projected demand for these minerals at the scale envisioned for EV's will require many new mines, all powered by fossil fuels, and in time periods probably not achievable due to regulations, suppliers, and costs. Environmental impacts would be huge.

These mineral demand figures tend to fall into the "uncomfortable truths" category for EV's enthusiasts.

Hybrids require far smaller batteries and demands of the grid for power than EVs. If time is important in dealing with climate change, make the most use of what is already available. Just common sense.