Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The solid staste battery development is going to have very large impact on the EV. This is classical US manufacturing. Rolls of material sprayed and coated with others then dried and rolled up. The Goodenough device promises more than doubling of the energy density and substantial incremental battery weight reduction after that. And there is reasons to believe that whole development sequence will lead to even further improvements.
So around 2023 we should see product with even better stuff available in 2025. And then further incremental improvements into the 2030s.
The vast majority of ICE are doomed. The remaining question is how soon.
Regardless of battery type, the products needed to build one still need metals, plastics, etc., and these aren't renewable resources, nor readily available. Also, regardless of technology, the newer one is more expensive at the beginning since factory machinery has to be "retooled," and the firmware/software changed.
It would be somewhat the same for oil as it would becomes more rare. But at the moment there is plenty of oil for a least a few decades, since most governments around the world have set oil reserves aside.
There is no doubt that the EV makers need to design and implement a path for re-using and recycling their batteries. I know they are working on both. You don't want them to just be tossed away, as that will surely lead to scarcity of raw materials much more readily than if they can re-use and recycle.
Over the last decade, the amount of cobalt needed for the NCM lithium-ion battery has dropped precipitously and that along with advancements in other lithium-ion chemistries has been part of what's caused the price per kWh to drop. It's literally less of all the materials, but especially expensive cobalt which has sometimes gone up in price, for the same amount of capacity. It's actually new processes that make better use of the same materials in some cases.
If such has happened, it's only natural for it to take place. Industry is always trying to find ways for implementing cost-saving methods. But as the demand for batteries increases, more cobalt is needed. Regardless, these minerals must be collected and processed, plus aren't plentiful all around the world.
Quote:
I was talking about EVs and ICE vehicles in total which would include the batteries and their large carbon footprint. It's reasonable to talk about the whole hog and this also includes the emissions of operations along with production. That's the weird thing about the Manhattan Institute write-up which is more than happy to talk about the production emissions and also some of the end of life disposal and will mention a tidbit about the efficiency of natural gas pipelines, but then somehow ignore a pretty sizable part of the process of actually running and operating the vehicle. This would make sense if you built these vehicles and then you never used them, but why would you be building millions of vehicles with the intent that they never be used? Don't you think it would make more sense if trying to do a comparison to include emissions from the actual usage of the vehicles?
The Manhattan Institute is only one of numerous organizations that have published what it takes to build EV batteries. And it is true that there is a very large detrimental environmental impact on earth during the processing and use of minerals, plastics, and so on, in the construction of both ICE and EVs. But in addition to the carbon foot-print for building one of these vehicles, there is another added to EV's, and that is its battery.
As I mentioned before, my intent was not to create arguments about the Manhattan Institute article. There are articles written from all sides, including the environmental communities, and all point out the pros and cons relating to EV batteries or any battery that contain the same minerals.
Quote:
ICE provides its power via the fuel that has to extracted, refined, distributed, and then combusted. It does that combustion with a pretty low efficiency at an average of 15-25% from tank to wheel though better with some hybrids, it's still pretty inefficient overall. If you want to talk about the total emissions calculation, then you should probably consider everything that goes into getting that gas into your tank.
And the electricity stored in the EV battery provides electricity to power the EV. This battery power comes from the power plants I mentioned before. The power plants themselves run with fuels that have to be extracted from the ground, processed, and distributed. Then the electrical power has to be used to charge the battery by the use of a charger that is made of metals, plastics, and other materials that also are extracted from the ground.
Quote:
I definitely don't think EVs are going to supplant combustion engines in all uses cases--not by a long shot. I think for the purpose of general consumer vehicle usage though, it seems likely that for some year this decade, the majority of new vehicle sales will end up majority plugins. My guess is it'll get to 10% plugins for new vehicle market by 2023 or so and majority in 2028 or so. 2023 isn't that far away, so that'll be a pretty good indicator.
Agree.
-------------
The way I feel about it: all power sources are fine, regardless of type, as long as they can be more efficient and cleaner. This includes both EV's and ICE. There aren't any reasons for not figuring ways to develop cleaner burning fuels, and more efficient ICEs.
Over the last decade, the amount of cobalt needed for the NCM lithium-ion battery has dropped precipitously and that along with advancements in other lithium-ion chemistries has been part of what's caused the price per kWh to drop. It's literally less of all the materials, but especially expensive cobalt which has sometimes gone up in price, for the same amount of capacity. It's actually new processes that make better use of the same materials in some cases.
I was talking about EVs and ICE vehicles in total which would include the batteries and their large carbon footprint. It's reasonable to talk about the whole hog and this also includes the emissions of operations along with production. That's the weird thing about the Manhattan Institute write-up which is more than happy to talk about the production emissions and also some of the end of life disposal and will mention a tidbit about the efficiency of natural gas pipelines, but then somehow ignore a pretty sizable part of the process of actually running and operating the vehicle. This would make sense if you built these vehicles and then you never used them, but why would you be building millions of vehicles with the intent that they never be used? Don't you think it would make more sense if trying to do a comparison to include emissions from the actual usage of the vehicles?
ICE provides its power via the fuel that has to extracted, refined, distributed, and then combusted. It does that combustion with a pretty low efficiency at an average of 15-25% from tank to wheel though better with some hybrids, it's still pretty inefficient overall. If you want to talk about the total emissions calculation, then you should probably consider everything that goes into getting that gas into your tank.
I definitely don't think EVs are going to supplant combustion engines in all uses cases--not by a long shot. I think for the purpose of general consumer vehicle usage though, it seems likely that for some year this decade, the majority of new vehicle sales will end up majority plugins. My guess is it'll get to 10% plugins for new vehicle market by 2023 or so and majority in 2028 or so. 2023 isn't that far away, so that'll be a pretty good indicator.
10% offered for sale, or 10% actually sold by 2023? If it's the latter I think that's highly optimistic and not very likely.
Regardless of battery type, the products needed to build one still need metals, plastics, etc., and these aren't renewable resources, nor readily available. Also, regardless of technology, the newer one is more expensive at the beginning since factory machinery has to be "retooled," and the firmware/software changed.
It would be somewhat the same for oil as it would becomes more rare. But at the moment there is plenty of oil for a least a few decades, since most governments around the world have set oil reserves aside.
The materials used are common and available and recyclable. At least as well as those used in ICE vehicles. The argument is completely a witch hunt. Let the development go on and all will be fine.
TheEV may fail though I think that unlikely. But it will not be over material problems. The ICE is a disaster in those terms so not a hard competitor. This is simply a natural progression. No Magic.
10% offered for sale, or 10% actually sold by 2023? If it's the latter I think that's highly optimistic and not very likely.
I think 10% offered for sale would be silly especially if the percent offered for sale were very far off from what's sold (then that means a lot of people screwed up). I'm saying 10% new vehicle sales of mass production vehicles like the kind usually considered in vehicle sale stats in the US as plugins including both plugin hybrids and full BEVs--basically, any vehicle that can run solely on electricity.
Haven’t been following the topic but out of curiosity I have been browsing around for EV’s incase I do end up buying one but was sorely disappointed to find most of them only get around 250 - 275 miles to a full charge. That’s fine for around town but I do a lot of road trips. It seems for me, Hybrids are probably still going to be the way to go. When an the avg EV can get 450 - 500 miles to a full charge and they don’t need to be on a charger for 30 minutes, I will probably reconsider them. I may buy one for getting around town in but outside of that it would be a major downstep.
I think 10% offered for sale would be silly especially if the percent offered for sale were very far off from what's sold (then that means a lot of people screwed up). I'm saying 10% new vehicle sales of mass production vehicles like the kind usually considered in vehicle sale stats in the US as plugins including both plugin hybrids and full BEVs--basically, any vehicle that can run solely on electricity.
I don't think that will happen in less than two years.
And the electricity stored in the EV battery provides electricity to power the EV. This battery power comes from the power plants I mentioned before. The power plants themselves run with fuels that have to be extracted from the ground, processed, and distributed. Then the electrical power has to be used to charge the battery by the use of a charger that is made of metals, plastics, and other materials that also are extracted from the ground.
Solar and wind plants do not use fuels that have to be extracted from the ground. This is where EV "wins" in terms of cleanliness: unlike ICE, it can be fueled by 100% clean energy while ICE never can be. Which leads to one of EV's biggest consumer advantages, which is your own garage is your own personal gas station. If you have solar panels on your roof it's possible to completely fill your EV's tank using free, clean energy.
The materials used are common and available and recyclable. At least as well as those used in ICE vehicles. The argument is completely a witch hunt. Let the development go on and all will be fine.
TheEV may fail though I think that unlikely. But it will not be over material problems. The ICE is a disaster in those terms so not a hard competitor. This is simply a natural progression. No Magic.
IN THE US, where are the recycling centers located at?
Yes, electric vehicle batteries can be recycled. But not as cost-effective as one may expect, as the cost of recycling is more expensive than the cost of mining and creating a new battery. Extracting lithium from old electric vehicle batteries is more costly than mining and processing lithium. So the safest bet is reusing the old car batteries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
