How green are lithium batteries EV technology?

[oriol]

Hi!

There is always this controversy around EV technology; that there is not enough lithium reserves for all the cars that exist, that lithium batteries can not be recycled, or that the cost of recycling them does not pay the price?

Not so long ago, there were similar thoughts about solar panels. Like that the carbon footprint required to produce solar panels was higher, compared to the amount of energy that a solar a panel can release during its lifetime. However as the technology evolved this has proved to be wrong.

It seems that there is a similar thinking regarding battery technology. Something like that by switching to this technology, companies will invest in research and this will result in a breakthrough, that will allow us to avoid the present oil dependency.

Some people argue that by switching to lithium batteries we are simply changing form depending on oil, to depend on lithium. In overall resulting in a non sustainable dependency. There is a lot of talk about how pollutant is the process of extracting lithium, and that a lithium oligrachy/cleptocracy is being created, in the countries in where there a lithium reserves, pretty much like what has happened in the countries in where there is oil.

What do you think? Can it will be show with facts that the current EV/lithium batteries technologies, are already less pollutant to the environment than oil?

Cheers,

Oriol

 

[offGridDownUnder]

Can it will be show with facts that the current EV/lithium batteries technologies, are already less pollutant to the environment than oil?

I cannot speak to this question, but I can mention that in some cases, the best path is to use what we have to get towards what we want.

Using fossil fuels guarantees that we are adding carbon to the ecology that changes it more rapidly than we have any record of occurring in the past, and the consequences are already showing. We have no way to change the carbon in oil to anything but carbon.

The economy for solar panels and lithium batteries is spurring exploration of better batteries and better solar panels and both promise energy without adding carbon - there is no way to do that with oil.

So, as an absolute, no, but at least it's possible to reach an economy that does not release massive new carbon.

 

[harrisonpatm]

There's a lot of variables to consider, and there's not gonna be a right answer. Some things I'll add:

Lithium battery tech has already evolved to the point where it's not lithium that's the limiting factor, but rather cobalt and other rare earth minerals that are harder to come by. Plus we have since located more possible sources of lithium than originally thought, including domestic to the US (I think it was in the dakotas?) And tech like lithium-iron-phosphate cells, while less energy dense, don't use cobalt. So there's that.

The analogy to solar cells is a good one; nobody in the 90s thought it would be possible for solar tech to power anything substantial, like a house or a car, but here we are now. I would say that, unlike battery tech, solar cells materials are rather common compared to things like lithium. They're essentially made of sand.

We also have current events like the recent battery plant in LA catching fire...again... and that's just gonna keep being bad PR for battery tech. I don't think anybody was every worried about solar panels catching fire.

I don't have any specific points to make or sides to back, but it's a good topic to discuss.

 

[docw009]

Mining is not green, It generates huge human and environmental damages, because of corporate greed. The one rare earth mine in California created a radioactive lake. and was shut down 23 years ago. Several owners tried to reopen and went bankrupt, It's running again today with minority ownership by a Chinese concern. Lot of corporate shenanigans.

Oh well. What you going to do, We're not going back to coal. The younger crowd on Kentucky and West Virgina have seen grandpa dying with lung disease. WHo the hell is going to go back underground if they were to reopen the mines. Maybe immigrants,

 

[99t4]

We're not going back to coal.

Open to debate?

Interior nominee Burgum calls for 'clean coal' to power AI

 

[technicaldaydreams]

Consider how much habitat and how many kilograms of carbon and emitted to build and keep a basic bicycle rolling. Steel, aluminum and rubber don't come from a fairy.

Ebikes are the optimal personal transport from environmental and economic concerns. Extracting any natural resources is an environmental catastrophe.

Excepting nature preserves or traditional hunter/gatherer life styles, nothing is truly green. Green just means less harmful to the world we have to live in. Every hectare of agriculture is one less hectare on conservation land, deforestation induces mass wasting, quarries and mines directly destroy habitat and poison aquifers and soils.

Even the most responsible hunting puts heavy metals into the environment from the projectiles. More than a few places are banning lead ammo because of well proven environmental degradation. Lead shot is completely illegal in wetlands.

We need to reduce habitat loss, and pollution to the minimum without people going hungry. And that means nuclear, renewables and batteries. Any argument about the very real and important environmental concerns about those also apply to petroleum with the added detriment of insane amounts of emissions.

I've heard that if we lived in the same density as manhattan, all of humanity could fit on new zealand.

 

[JackFlorey]

Open to debate?

Not really. It's the dirtiest form of power we have and the second most expensive. It will be around for a little while but the trend will be downwards.

 

[JackFlorey]

There is always this controversy around EV technology; that there is not enough lithium reserves for all the cars that exist, that lithium batteries can not be recycled, or that the cost of recycling them does not pay the price?

Well there's a simple relationship there.

If we have enough lithium from mines that it's cheap? Then that's what we will use.
If the supply is very limited? Then we will pay the price to recycle the batteries and get the lithium out.

But as others have mentioned, lithium isn't the limiting factor any more.

 

[marka-ee]

Overconsumption, false ideas of what comfort level should be right, greed, selfishness,These are the faults, I believe, prevent the right thing from happening. I don't think there's anything wrong with EVs or their lithium batteries if the vehicles were small. But people are used to driving behemoth SUVs which weigh way too much.
China produces some very nice small cars that are EVs that are perfectly adequate for most trips.
I think the Amish are basically on a better track than most of the world. I'm thinking the solution is Amish plus allowing more technology than they do, but in a limited way.

 

[marvin78]

We also have current events like the recent battery plant in LA catching fire...again... and that's just gonna keep being bad PR for battery tech. I don't think anybody was every worried about solar panels catching fire.

Sadly It's obviously the way forward but public acceptance will need more clear safety regulations ( proving they are effective, eg no repeating fires at the largest facility to date ).

Oh well. What you going to do, We're not going back to coal. The younger crowd on Kentucky and West Virgina have seen grandpa dying with lung disease. WHo the hell is going to go back underground if they were to reopen the mines. Maybe immigrants,

So you're looking at labor shortages shortly ... just as the food industry will crawl to a halt if bad man does the bad things he 'promised'.

China produces some very nice small cars that are EVs that are perfectly adequate for most trips.

ImHo, most occupants of murdermachines could just as well do their groceries using a quadracycle ( Citroen Ami, Opel Rock-e ).

To bad my country cries that quadracycles can't seat more then two people, in France an Aixam Crossline does 90km/h and seats 4 ( L7E classification iirc ).

 

[jonescg]

Guys, this is literally the number one research area anyone in the battery / new energy sector has to get very familiar with very quickly. It's easy - go to Google Scholar and search for lifecycle emissions on anything, externalized costs of any process, and even the number of jobs created through a new industry. It's a HUGE field of research any it's really well studied.

The latest numbers on LFP cells are about 75 to 150 kg CO2e/kWh, depending on the upstream energy soruces.

Lithium is not the element to worry about - it's nickel and to a lesser extent cobalt. Lesser because we're using far less of it. The world's most productive lithium mine in in Greenbushes Western Australia, and it provides about 1/3 of the world's battery lithium. It's a frickin quarry.

 

[Chalo]

We need to reduce habitat loss, and pollution to the minimum without people going hungry. And that means nuclear, renewables and batteries.

it also and mainly means bringing population growth to zero or negative, or we'll quickly wind up in the very same crisis no matter how back-pattingly clever we become. Looking at y'all, breeders.

 

[marvin78]

Tbf, we're not the direct issue here. Africa and Asia as continents seem to be where the population growth is.

*if it weren't for immigration I actually think Dutch population size would be declining or stagnant. The time of large families has gone, most people only have one or two kids.

 

[JackFlorey]

Tbf, we're not the direct issue here. Africa and Asia as continents seem to be where the population growth is.

Yep. It's a result of centuries of having to have 5 children to ensure 2 survive. Nowadays they are surviving more often.

If the net AVERAGE worldwide is two children per woman, population declines over time.

 

[oriol]

The economy for solar panels and lithium batteries is spurring exploration of better batteries and better solar panels and both promise energy without adding carbon - there is no way to do that with oil.

True,

I guess that what we need to do, is simply try to move towards a cleaner economy, by making gradual changes. It will not happen from day to night, but the change will come.

The analogy to solar cells is a good one; nobody in the 90s thought it would be possible for solar tech to power anything substantial, like a house or a car, but here we are now. I would say that, unlike battery tech, solar cells materials are rather common compared to things like lithium. They're essentially made of sand.

Yes,

Perhaps back in the day, nobody thought that solar panels will become that efficient, and now they are,

Consider how much habitat and how many kilograms of carbon and emitted to build and keep a basic bicycle rolling. Steel, aluminum and rubber don't come from a fairy.

Yes, but the steel and tires, from which a bicycle are made, can be recycled as many times as you want. It seems that recycling a non lead acid battery is quite complex though.

Ebikes are the optimal personal transport from environmental and economic concerns. Extracting any natural resources is an environmental catastrophe.

Haha! There is something even better than an electric bcicycle, particularly if you live in a flat area, a simple bicycle.

We need to reduce habitat loss, and pollution to the minimum without people going hungry. And that means nuclear, renewables and batteries. Any argument about the very real and important environmental concerns about those also apply to petroleum with the added detriment of insane amounts of emissions.

Very true,

We need to find a compromise between going green, and avoiding people being hungry.

I think the Amish are basically on a better track than most of the world. I'm thinking the solution is Amish plus allowing more technology than they do, but in a limited way.

I could not agree more!

It makes me wish to restart, a solar powered electric bicycle project that was left on a drawer.

go to Google Scholar and search for lifecycle emissions on anything, externalized costs of any process, and even the number of jobs created through a new industry. It's a HUGE field of research any it's really well studied.

Good point!

I have not thought about googling for papers studying that particular issue, So I did. These below are part of the conclusions from a study I have found, done ten years ago;




According to this paper, who might perhaps be a bit outdated, surprisingly a fuel powered car, is more green than an electric one, when going fully loaded at high speed.

This has made me realize that, since drag is the square of speed, by simply going a bit slower, you can find the ideal fuel economy speed. I have googled for the "most efficient driving speed", and the sweet spot seems to be 90 km/h.

Refering to the paper above again, at a lower speed, the electric car is as green as an hybrid one. But if most of the driving you do is on urban areas, which is many time the case when people commute, then an electric car becomes the most efficient one.

Thanks a lot for the interesting replies and comments!

Oriol

 

[99t4]

Not really. It's the dirtiest form of power we have and the second most expensive. It will be around for a little while but the trend will be downwards.

By my "Open to debate?" comment I was responding to your comment about not going back to coal. The article I linked was describing the new incoming US administration wanting to increase coal fired electricity generation to power the growing AI computation industry. I thought your comment was meaning essentially we were going to be reducing coal usage? I was offering a rebuttal to that.

 

[amberwolf]

Haha! There is something even better than an electric bcicycle, particularly if you live in a flat area, a simple bicycle.

That depends on calorie cost (there have been a number of discussions about that in years past if you poke around for them).

 

[JackFlorey]

By my "Open to debate?" comment I was responding to your comment about not going back to coal. The article I linked was describing the new incoming US administration wanting to increase coal fired electricity generation to power the growing AI computation industry.

Yep. But unless they manage to cancel the EPA AND all current emissions laws, coal will continue to be the most expensive form of power out there. I imagine they could pass a law that requires new coal power plants but I don't think they are competent enough to pull that off.

Thus, what will doom coal will not be feelings of the current administration, but simple economics.

 

[jonescg]

True,

I guess that what we need to do, is simply try to move towards a cleaner economy, by making gradual changes. It will not happen from day to night, but the change will come.



Yes,

Perhaps back in the day, nobody thought that solar panels will become that efficient, and now they are,



Yes, but the steel and tires, from which a bicycle are made, can be recycled as many times as you want. It seems that recycling a non lead acid battery is quite complex though.



Haha! There is something even better than an electric bcicycle, particularly if you live in a flat area, a simple bicycle.



Very true,

We need to find a compromise between going green, and avoiding people being hungry.



I could not agree more!

It makes me wish to restart, a solar powered electric bicycle project that was left on a drawer.



Good point!

I have not thought about googling for papers studying that particular issue, So I did. These below are part of the conclusions from a study I have found, done ten years ago;


View attachment 364541

According to this paper, who might perhaps be a bit outdated, surprisingly a fuel powered car, is more green than an electric one, when going fully loaded at high speed.

This has made me realize that, since drag is the square of speed, by simply going a bit slower, you can find the ideal fuel economy speed. I have googled for the "most efficient driving speed", and the sweet spot seems to be 90 km/h.

Refering to the paper above again, at a lower speed, the electric car is as green as an hybrid one. But if most of the driving you do is on urban areas, which is many time the case when people commute, then an electric car becomes the most efficient one.

Thanks a lot for the interesting replies and comments!

Oriol

You can also change the search filters for only papers in the last 2 years. It's a rapidly evolving field, and huge gains are being made in very short timeframes. Way faster than academic publishing cycles.
You'll find anything older than 4 years can be disregarded!

 

[technicaldaydreams]

it also and mainly means bringing population growth to zero or negative, or we'll quickly wind up in the very same crisis no matter how back-pattingly clever we become. Looking at y'all, breeders.

Yes, responsible family planning is important. Don't quote me on this but that was a large part of the PRC's one child policy. Making sure your family can afford a child before trying to have one, but also having proper sex ed and universal access to reproductive health is important.

There is a lot of talk about more people dying than being born, and currently it seems that trend will continue. The fear is that there will be too many old people to take care of, and many countries are raising the minimum ages for government pensions.
The PRC recently started to gradually raise the retirement age to be three years higher. (Will be 63 for men, 58 for women in white collar work, 53 for women in blue collar work.)
In the US, social security pensions start at 62 but incentives are in place for waiting until 68 to start receiving checks.
India's retirement age for government employees is 60 to 62 years old.

In every single sector of the economy, there are old people doing useful work. While not as productive as other age groups, when provided a reasonable work load, people can still do useful work as they age. Let's not forget that human life has value outside of direct economic activity.

Forgive the callousness and euphemisms but it seems to be a self solving issue: as people age, the likelihood of poor health outcomes increases. How many elderly do we lose to influenza, cirrhosis, heart disease, carcinoma and so on, every year? It would not be unreasonable to expect an increasing mortality rate be followed by a decreasing average age. There will be period of reduced consumption of non essential goods and services, but eventually the population will stabilize. And that wont be easy but people the whole world around carry on and do the best they can.

That depends on calorie cost (there have been a number of discussions about that in years past if you poke around for them).

Generally, the emissions from producing food far exceed the emissions from the consumption of said food. There is ultra sustainable horticulture, and I want to say Cuba does very low emissions agriculture due to economic sanctions.

Figuring out how to sustainably feed people without famine will be hard, especially in a disrupted climate but in all things we need to be brave and work hard.

 

[neptronix]

Back to the topic.



Here's my take.
Yeah, mining is bad, but..
It is getting closer to economical ( not profitable, but at least fiscally possible ) and very possible to recycle electric car batteries at this point. The trend for recycling is, to continue to ramp up.

Future batteries will also gradually use less and less materials, while also getting better. They scale like the computer processor in that way ( just a lot slower ). Anything that scales like that, will win.

Short term there will be a lot of damage from EV mining to get them off the ground. Will give environmentalists a new thing to harp on about. But compare that to the cost of lives from hydrocarbon pollution ( currently estimated at 9 million people per year by the WHO ), oil wars, geoengineering, etc as a result of using oil over the ages.

I think it's going to be a short term pain, long term gain kinda thing.

 

[Chalo]

Tbf, we're not the direct issue here. Africa and Asia as continents seem to be where the population growth is.

*if it weren't for immigration I actually think Dutch population size would be declining or stagnant. The time of large families has gone, most people only have one or two kids.

The resource footprint of humans in the industrialized world versus the developing world isn't comparable. A new American hatchling consumes and pollutes as much as 50 Nepalese, for instance. So it is an "us" problem for sure.

The richest economies may well be leading a trend towards lower population growth overall. But in terms of sustainability, it's most effective if those specific economies have the fastest and soonest population declines.

 

[marvin78]

'We' might consume problematically, with us not being the problem I mainly meant we're not the one's who think there is an issue large enough to leave our cozy comfortable lives in hope for better elsewhere.

No one sane will deny Murican consumerism is the driving force behind the US being the accumulative largest source of pollution in the world.

 

[jonescg]

Tbf, we're not the direct issue here. Africa and Asia as continents seem to be where the population growth is.

*if it weren't for immigration I actually think Dutch population size would be declining or stagnant. The time of large families has gone, most people only have one or two kids.

Well between a child born today in Kansas and a child born in Abuja, who will have the greater planetary impact over the coming 30 years?

 

[marvin78]

Define 'impact'? Maybe the child from Abuja will grow up to be a noble price winner.

If you mean: who is likely to have the largest impact on the environment it's the other one probably... unless the child from Abuja get's a nobel price for something to do with cleaning up the others mess which isn't completely unlikely.

Doesn't change the fact that 'kids in Africa and Asia' are the biggest contributors world wide to population growth.