Post New

I'm new to this board. And have no illusions of being well informed on EV's and Hybrids.

BUT if climate warming is an existential threat AND if BYD has a hybrid that can deliver a 1300 mile range on 16 gallons of gasoline (80mpg) it would seem to the world's benefit to have as many of these on the road replacing lower mpg vehicles as soon as possible. The greater good.

But here's where the rubber always meets the road. A superior BYD vehicle would displace local manufacture and local jobs. So, once again, it's a battle between what's best for the world and what's best for the local economy.

And we know which side always wins.

To this old engineer, the fastest way to reduce pollution from light ICE cars is to replace them with hybrids. Less gasoline, less CO2 emissions. Less new infrastructure needs re. expanding electricity supplies and charging stations. Far less needs for huge new battery materials - and the mines and extraction needed to produce them. These all consume fossile energy and generate CO2. Use what is installed and working today. Toyota sees this - why can't we?

Our policy makers have tried to jump directly from lower mileage ICE cars to pure EV's without logically thinking out the needed steps along the way. Hybrid vehicles should be receiving the bulk of the light vehicle incentives today.

Everyone would win except those who have tried to put the cart before the horse in terms of a logical transition plan.

As I admitted at the start I'm not well informed on this. But I do know that pure EV vehicles start out with a significant increase in CO2 emissions compared with ICE vehicles because of the energy used to produce them. This takes some years - studies differ depending on their assumptions - about how long it takes to make up this deficit before any actual reductions occur in CO2 emissions. How do hybrid vehicles compare on this metric with EV's? Folks don't want to seem to talk about this.

We need less "ready-fire" and more "ready aim fire" in combatting CO2 emissions from light vehicles.

An aside comment. Some years ago laws were passed to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from heavy duty vehicles and marine transportation by reducing the sulfur content of their fuels. So fuel suppliers did and those emissions dropped. And temperatures rose because those emissions adsorbed solar radiation and reduced temperatures.

There are almost always unintended consequences and misunderstood tradeoffs.

It's still happening.

To this old engineer, the fastest way to reduce pollution from light ICE cars is to replace them with hybrids. Less gasoline, less CO2 emissions. Less new infrastructure needs re. expanding electricity supplies and charging stations. Far less needs for huge new battery materials - and the mines and extraction needed to produce them. These all consume fossile energy and generate CO2. Use what is installed and working today. Toyota sees this - why can't we?


I agree about the advantages of hybrids, but I don't think there's really any conflict in promoting both hybrids and pure electrics. There is no real constraint on the amount of raw materials available for making both, and the analyses I've seen indicate that pure electrics do make back their initial energy investment over time, so we don't have to limit ourselves to hybrids.

Many governments are proposing that internal combusion engines be completely phased out, often by 2035 or 2040, and this seems to me to be unrealistically rapid. It would be better to say that all cars should have a minimum of X kilometres of plug-in electric function, X = about 30-40 km for instance, or pay a financial penalty, $5000 for instance, while removing all subsidies for electric cars. This would be a way of quickly getting most cars to have hybrid functioning at a small cost to the consumer and no cost to the government, which will not be able to sustain subsidies for all electric vehicles anyways. And it could start almost immediately, quickly achieving massive reductions in fuel use. It would be of some benefit to car owners who can't charge their car at home (via regenerative charging), but it would obviously put enormous pressure on apartment buildings, employers, even mall owners and municipalities to install charging facilities so car owners could take full advantage of their vehicle's capacities.

I didn't understand your reference to unexpected effects of removing sulphur from fuels. What do you mean by "temperatures rose because those emissions adsorbed solar radiation and reduced temperatures"?

dtb

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/the-role-of-critical-m...

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.

Not to pile on the subject, but the ability of EV's to significantly reduce CO2 emissions on a life cycle basis is not as well understood as many people assume.

Here's a recent article (August 2021) on the subject:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/22/the-tough-calcul...

These are the lead-in paragraphs from the article:

Investors and politicians embracing a vision of an all-electric car future believe that path will significantly reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. That’s far from clear.

A growing body of research points to the likelihood that widespread replacement of conventional cars with EVs would likely have a relatively small impact on global emissions. And it’s even possible that the outcome would increase emissions.

The issue is not primarily about the emissions resulting from producing electricity. Instead, it’s what we know and don’t know about what happens before an EV is delivered to a customer, namely, the “embodied” emissions arising from the labyrinthine supply chains to obtain and process all the materials needed to fabricate batteries.

For those interested enough in the subject to read the article, here are some teasers:

"A growing body of research points to the likelihood that widespread replacement of conventional cars with EVs would likely have a relatively small impact on global emissions. And it’s even possible that the outcome would increase emissions.

The issue is not primarily about the emissions resulting from producing electricity. Instead, it’s what we know and don’t know about what happens before an EV is delivered to a customer, namely, the “embodied” emissions arising from the labyrinthine supply chains to obtain and process all the materials needed to fabricate batteries."

"For example, one review of 50 academic studies found estimates for embodied emissions to fabricate a single EV battery ranged from a low of about eight tons to as high as 20 tons of CO2. Another recent technical analysis put the range at about four to 14 tons. The high end of those ranges is nearly as much CO2 as is produced by the lifetime of fuel burned by an efficient conventional car. Again, that’s before the EV is delivered to a customer and driven its first mile.

The uncertainties come from inherent — and likely unresolvable — variabilities in both the quantity and type of energy used in the battery fuel cycle with factors that depend on geography and process choices, many often proprietary. Analyses of the embodied energy show a range from two to six barrels of oil (in energy-equivalent terms) is used to fabricate a battery that can store the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. Thus, any calculation of embodied emissions for an EV battery is an estimate based on myriad assumptions. The fact is, no one can measure today’s or predict tomorrow’s EV carbon dioxide “mileage.”

******

Porgy and Bess is one of my favorite operas. It includes the song: "It Ain't Necessarily So". Sadly, that may also be the case with EVs when all is said and done. Meanwhile many billions, maybe trillions. will be spent on the assumption that we alaready know this is the best solution to light vehicle transportation.

My grandmother had an expression that's stuck with me through life. It goes:

"Experience is the best teacher - if you don't pay too high a price."

The risk that we're doing so is real.

IEA report: "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."

Texirish:
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.


These are valid considerations, but I think the IEA article is way too pessimistic. We are not going to convert to mostly electric transportation overnight, it is much more likely to take 15-20 years. The article talks about mineral demand for use in EVs and battery storage growing 30-40 times, framing the question in a way that sounds alarming, but the real question is, what do these extra mineral requirements for EVs and storage add to the existing demand for these minerals, not just from EVs and storage but from all other uses? I don't have the answer to that, but most uses of copper, nickel, cobalt do not involve EVs and storage. For instance, most copper is used in building construction and electronics, not EVs. Big increases in EV copper use will not have a big impact in total copper use. And for lithium, which really will see big increases in the total demand, there is oodles of it in the ground, and despite huge increases in use over the last 10 years (28 000 tons in 2010, 180 000 tons in 2023), and although this particular element has had very volatile prices in the last few years, prices are similar today to what they were 10 years ago: https://www.dailymetalprice.com/metalpricecharts.p...

DTB

To quote Munger, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand.

All your points are covered, and refuted, in the articles. There is huge uncertainty.

If you choose your own scenario based on your beliefs, that's your right.

I won't waste any more time on the subject. only came to this board to try to support Manlobbi in expanding the use of the boards. There doesn't seem to be enough interest to make the effort worthwhile.

These are valid considerations, but I think the IEA article is way too pessimistic. We are not going to convert to mostly electric transportation overnight, it is much more likely to take 15-20 years.

I think that this is a good point, particularly because we tend to project only a subset of all variables forward when we make projections. In this case the article projects the use of copper forward, but it does not project how technology can change over long periods of time. Similarly projections only a couple of decades ago were extremely critical of solar power ever being cost effective, but the technology kept improving, so the equations were completely different further down the track.

The article talks about mineral demand for use in EVs and battery storage growing 30-40 times, framing the question in a way that sounds alarming, but the real question is, what do these extra mineral requirements for EVs and storage add to the existing demand for these minerals, not just from EVs and storage but from all other uses?

They did address that, and stated it as reaching about 60% over total present global demand, in a fairly aggressive scenario of half of all cars becoming EV. If the requirement for copper increased by 60% even tomorrow, I think the copper would still be supplied and it would just be more expensive, but if that happens over 20 years then we are not talking about a radical increase in demand. So yes, the tone was alarmist but they were essentially verifying that we have plenty of copper.

If the mineral costs really get expensive, they can also be recycled from the EV:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-well-can-elect...
Of course, 10 or 20 years down the track, the technology will look a lot different to how it does today, just as EV technology looks completely different today than it did in 2004.

- Manlobbi

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.