How green are lithium batteries EV technology?

[classicalgas]

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

Any comparison between fossil fuels and solar/batteries is silly, electricity always wins on both efficiency and minimizing ecological damage.

Fossil fuels don't arrive free, they are filthy and dangerous to mine and ship, we fight wars over access to them, and support disgusting regimes (that frock us over any time they can) to keep supplies open...and then we use them ONCE. Releasing pollutants while doing that. An ICE runs about 20% conversion efficiency in a car (energy conversion to motion) AND it took about another gallon's worth of energy to get a gallon of fuel to your gas station. That's beyond stupid.

Lithium ( or other minerals for batteries) are mined , refined, and then used in the original battery for DECADES, storing energy thousands of times. Battery energy conversion to forward motion is about 95% efficient

PV panels have a useful life ( in non commercial electricity production ) of 75+ years. If the panels on your roof are only producing 75% of original output, add a couple.

 

[Hillhater]

Fossil fuels don't arrive free,….

..and neither does wind or Solar..
they require large footprint , complex systems, that can only be manufactured using expensive fossil fueled technologies.
They also require massive overcapacity installations due to the low CF (efficiency) in operation, and huge, expensive , battery capacity to compensate for intermittent operation.
Due to their dependency on environmental conditions, they often need to be remotely located ..coastal, offshore, deserts, hilltops, etc….which dictates more expensive and environmentally compromising transmission lines
All of which results in increased energy prices for the consumers.

PV panels have a useful life ( in non commercial electricity production ) of 75+ years.

Hmm ?… how do you conclude that ?

 

[classicalgas]

..and neither does wind or Solar..
they require large footprint , complex systems, that can only be manufactured using expensive fossil fueled technologies.
They also require massive overcapacity installations due to the low CF (efficiency) in operation, and huge, expensive , battery capacity to compensate for intermittent operation.
Due to their dependency on environmental conditions, they often need to be remotely located ..coastal, offshore, deserts, hilltops, etc….which dictates more expensive and environmentally compromising transmission lines
All of which results in increased energy prices for the consumers.


Hmm ?… how do you conclude that ?

The fuel for wind and solar does arrive free, it's not dug up, refined, and shipped or piped in....like all fossil fuels are. Wind and sunlight are waiting there on site, ready to use.

All types ( fossil and renewable) have infrastructure, power plants to convert fuel to electricity...it's just that PV is simple, cheap and modular compared to anything else.

Footprint only matters if you can't stack your power plant over other land uses. Which you can't with oil, coal, gas, or nuke. You can with PV or wind.

PV panels degrade slowly (short of catastrophic damage) only losing about a half percent of output a year.

"Modern solar panels maintain guaranteed power output for 25 to 30 years. All panels lose performance slightly each year, so after 25 years, panel output is usually between 84% and 92% of factory level"

"Output degradation is one of the downsides of solar panels. Leading manufacturers usually guarantee 98% to 99% performance after the first year. Then, they guarantee performance won’t degrade by more than 0.25% to 0.55% per year. After 25 years, this means you’ve only lost about 8% to 16% of output performance."

They don't just quit then, they continue losing a half a percent per year. There are pv panels on satellites we launched in the1960's still making power.

Even with energy storage included, PV is cheaper than any other power source. And cleaner.

You keep trotting out your nonsense, and getting it slapped down.

 

[JackFlorey]

..and neither does wind or Solar..

They do indeed arrive for free. Unlike say, coal, which requires mines, handling facilities, railroads, locomotives and railcars.

they require large footprint

My solar power system has zero additional footprint. The megawatt or so of PV down the street (over six parking lots) requires zero additional footprint. PV and wind over farms require zero additional footprint.

complex systems

Those parking lot systems require a frame and boxes the size of a big cooler, mounted on the frame. Far, far less complex than that coal plant.

They also require massive overcapacity installations

Yep. About 5 to 1 for solar, peak to average. But the cost of the additional sunlight needed is exactly zero.

Due to their dependency on environmental conditions, they often need to be remotely located ..coastal, offshore, deserts, hilltops, etc….

Or rooftops, parking lots, farms and roads.

which dictates more expensive and environmentally compromising transmission lines

Actually it's the coal and gas plants that have to be located far away to prevent their emissions, noise and footprint from bothering local residents. Putting your power generation on your roof means you don't need all those transmission lines - or, more accurately these days, means you don't have to build new ones.

 

[Hillhater]

They do indeed arrive for free. Unlike say, coal, which requires mines, handling facilities, railroads, locomotives and railcars.

Coal is free.
it can be found lying on the ground, put into a heap, ignited and will generate heat to cook, and heat your body…no “technology“ required…..day or Night !
What is needed to do that with Wind or solar ?
not everything is electric,..much of industrial processes require heat.

My solar power system has zero additional footprint. The megawatt or so of PV down the street (over six parking lots) requires zero additional footprint.

Great.!..now scale that up to power a town or city like NY……Think National Power Grid scale !..It can NEVER be done.

Those parking lot systems require a frame and boxes the size of a big cooler, mounted on the frame. Far, far less complex than that coal plant.

..And how many “parking lot” systems are needed to equal one 2 GW coal plant ( continuous , 24/7 output) ?

Yep. About 5 to 1 for solar, peak to average. But the cost of the additional sunlight needed is exactly zero.

But the costs of additional equipment, installation, and back up battery systems for uninterrupted 24 hr supply, is far from zero.

Or rooftops, parking lots, farms and roads.

I will assume that is a joke !…..remember National Grid Scale .

Actually it's the coal and gas plants that have to be located far away to prevent their emissions, noise and footprint from bothering local residents. Putting your power generation on your roof means you don't need all those transmission lines - or, more accurately these days, means you don't have to build new ones.

Odd then, that most coal and gas plants are actually relatively close to major urban areas where the power is needed ?
..And again, on a NATIONAL GRID SCALE, where are the many hundreds of Copper Mountain size Solar plants going to be sited ? And why are the so many OFF SHORE wind farms being planned ?
Sadly, the actual reality as is currently happening, is that all these “renewable” facilities have to be built in areas that maximise either solar radiation or Wind conditions, which tend to require massive new transmission systems to get the power to where it is actually needed.
Your roof and the local parking lot, just are never going to be enough !

 

[Tony01]

EVs are the opposite of green. I already went back and forth with @JackFlorey on this when we hijacked a portion of TheFingers’ Forest Fires thread and he has not yet responded to my last message in the hijack.

The catalytic converter was the greatest ‘green’ achievement in modern history.

 

[classicalgas]

Coal is free.
it can be found lying on the ground, put into a heap, ignited and will generate heat to cook, and heat your body…no “technology“ required…..day or Night !
What is needed to do that with Wind or solar ?
not everything is electric,..much of industrial processes require heat.

Great.!..now scale that up to power a town or city like NY……Think National Power Grid scale !..It can NEVER be done.

..And how many “parking lot” systems are needed to equal one 2 GW coal plant ( continuous , 24/7 output) ?

But the costs of additional equipment, installation, and back up battery systems for uninterrupted 24 hr supply, is far from zero.

I will assume that is a joke !…..remember National Grid Scale .

Odd then, that most coal and gas plants are actually relatively close to major urban areas where the power is needed ?
..And again, on a NATIONAL GRID SCALE, where are the many hundreds of Copper Mountain size Solar plants going to be sited ? And why are the so many OFF SHORE wind farms being planned ?
Sadly, the actual reality as is currently happening, is that all these “renewable” facilities have to be built in areas that maximise either solar radiation or Wind conditions, which tend to require massive new transmission systems to get the power to where it is actually needed.
Your roof and the local parking lot, just are never going to be enough !

"coal is free"...ROFLMFAO! You just showed us all how ridiculous your position is. How much is big oil paying you to look stupid? I hope it's worth it to you.

Just FYI...in most cities in the US, if all we covered with PV panels were the parking lots, the cities daytime power useage would be handled.

 

[Hillhater]

"coal is free"...ROFLMFAO!

Coal is a natural mineral resource , the only cost associated is the collection and transport to where its needed…
…..much the same as “free” sunshine or wind needs to be collected and transported to where it can be used .
And i am talking of GRID supply, not just your roof ( which still needs $20 k of “collection” equipment )

.in most cities in the US, if all we covered with PV panels were the parking lots, the cities daytime power useage would be handled.

..Possibly, but i doubt it would support any realistic industrial requirements, let alone the overnight demand ( do you realise how much power modern office buildings , or food stores etc, require overnight ?)
And how well would that solar plan work for cities like N York, Boston , or anywhere without the sunlight hours or clear weather the you have in mind ?

 

[JackFlorey]

The catalytic converter was the greatest ‘green’ achievement in modern history.

Catalytic converters are great. Of course, they require child slave labor to mine the platinum, palladium and rhodium they need, but they do make the air cleaner.

And EVs make the air cleaner still.

 

[JackFlorey]

"coal is free"...ROFLMFAO! You just showed us all how ridiculous your position is.

Hey, lies work these days.

 

[classicalgas]

Coal is a natural mineral resource , the only cost associated is the collection and transport to where its needed…
…..much the same as “free” sunshine or wind needs to be collected and transported to where it can be used .
And i am talking of GRID supply, not just your roof ( which still needs $20 k of “collection” equipment )

..Possibly, but i doubt it would support any realistic industrial requirements, let alone the overnight demand ( do you realise how much power modern office buildings , or food stores etc, require overnight ?)
And how well would that solar plan work for cities like N York, Boston , or anywhere without the sunlight hours or clear weather the you have in mind ?

You're being especially stupid, here.

Even if you could pick up coal off the surface, by the ton, two miles from where you burn it to make electricity, you'd still have costs involved in getting that fuel to your generating plant, and costs disposing of the clinkers and flue gasses. "Much the same as sunlight?!!! ROFLMFAO!

With PV, the fuel, sunlight, is there waiting ( not all the time) but you never have to pay to get it. All you do is collect it, like rain water. Is this too tough concept for you?...

We have companies here in the US, putting up PV generation on brownfield property in big cities, just to feed the smelter next door. No grid hookup at all.

Some pit mines are running some of their electric driven equipment (BIG, thousands of HP stuff) off on onsite PV...because...wait for it...it's CHEAPER!

It's been less than a hundred years since the US electric grid reached most rural farms ( some still aren't on the grid) a hundred years ago, extending the grid, with al the cost and wasted power involved, made sense, since back then, on farm power generation was problematic and costly. That's no longer true. I have neighboring farms, here in the cloudy PNW, that have covered the south facing roofs of their diary barns with PV , and payed off the installation in less than ten years... just in power savings.

Much of the third world is bypassing power grid build out outside the cities, and going with local PV generation, village by village. Farms that went to diesel generators decades ago to run irrigation pumps and computers with satellite internet, are now on PV...because...wait for it...it's CHEAPER! . EVEN WITH BATTERIES!

So far as night time US city power, or cloudy days, that's what batteries, NG generation, hydro, and wind are for. No one is saying we can go all solar, just that any fossil fuel we can avoid burning is a good thing.

I know big oil pays you to spew shit, but I hope it's worth it to you, looking like a fool on such a regular basis.

 

[Hillhater]

…the fuel, sunlight, is there waiting ( not all the time) but you never have to pay to get it. All you do is collect it

You seem to overlook the equipment necessary to “collect” that sunlight, ..
.. Convert it to A/C, ..
..step it up to transmission levels……
…..and the infrastructure to distribute it to the consumers
…not to mention those pesky little battery facilities needed for FCAS, and to attempt short term back up !

Farms that went to diesel generators decades ago to run irrigation pumps and computers with satellite internet, are now on PV...because...wait for it...it's CHEAPER! . EVEN WITH BATTERIES!

You seem incapable of thinking on a NATIONAL GRID SCALE level.
Domestic properties, farms, remote properties, mines, etc, that have previously depended on diesel fuel can obviously REDUCE their energy costs by converting to solar, ….BUT i will bet that all of them still have diesel generators available for back up When there is no solar.

I know big oil pays you to spew shit,

..you obviously do not know much at all !

 

[Chalo]

You seem to overlook the equipment necessary to “collect” that sunlight, ..
.. Convert it to A/C, ..
..step it up to transmission levels……
…..and the infrastructure to distribute it to the consumers

All these things are true of fossil energy too. But you also have to mine/extract it, process it into usable form, transport it to power stations, burn it, reject the waste heat and noxious gases, convert a minority of heat energy into rotational movement, convert a portion of that movement into electric power, transport the ash and clinker, dispose of it somewhere, maintain all the generation and transport equipment, and remediate all the resulting wasteland (or take it out of productive use permanently).

With PV, you put the solar panels where you want (possibly on top of other facilities you want) and extract energy directly as electric current without ongoing pollution. It saves several steps, a lot of energy, a lot of land, a lot of labor, and a ton of externalities.

 

[classicalgas]

You seem to overlook the equipment necessary to “collect” that sunlight, ..
.. Convert it to A/C, ..
..step it up to transmission levels……
…..and the infrastructure to distribute it to the consumers
…not to mention those pesky little battery facilities needed for FCAS, and to attempt short term back up !

You seem incapable of thinking on a NATIONAL GRID SCALE level.
Domestic properties, farms, remote properties, mines, etc, that have previously depended on diesel fuel can obviously REDUCE their energy costs by converting to solar, ….BUT i will bet that all of them still have diesel generators available for back up When there is no solar.

..you obviously do not know much at all !

You're acting like a fool.

All types of electricity generation require equipment. Fossil fuel generation requires equipment to dig, refine and transport their fuel as well. Wind and solar do not.

Those are as simple and small words as I can manage. If you can't understand the point, have a seven year old explain it to you.

I'm not claiming we can go all renewable this decade, or even in two or three. You are insisting that since we can't, we shouldn't even try, or pick the low hanging fruit.

"Grid scale" is a ridiculous assumption when PV is so easily done on a decentralized and hyper local basis. We've only had a national power grid in the US for a hundred years, the industrial revolution did just fine for over two centuries before grid electric power, with each factory making their own power.

Third world farmers are entirely replacing diesel generated power with PV/battery setups. So are third world schools and small repair shops. Anywhere the grid isn't cheap and reliable, DIY PV is taking over

So, feel free to continue lying, and I'll keep calling out your lies. If you aren't getting paid to spew your anti renewable shit, you're even more of a fool than I thought.

 

[Hillhater]

With PV, you put the solar panels where you want (possibly on top of other facilities you want) and extract energy directly…..

How does that work for a City like NY, or even LA ,
Reality is that significant size solar facilities ( 100+ MW) are constructed on sunbelt areas and require new transmission infrastructure to connect to grid distributor networks.

 

[Hillhater]

All types of electricity generation require equipment….

YES ! That is exactly the point i was trying to make you see.
You dont “just collect” sunlight or wind,..a lot of equipment and infrastructure is required befor that energy is useable. Even a Roof top solar system needs thousands of dollars of equipment before the energy is available to use.
( But i can just burn wood or coal to to heat my house, cook food, and provide light if neccessary !)

I'm not claiming we can go all renewable this decade, or even in two or three. You are insisting that since we can't, we shouldn't even try, or pick the low hanging fruit

I’m not insisting anything, i am just saying that Solar and wind have a very limited practical application.
When it comes to providing bulk power on a National scale, they can never be ecnomically viable, as have been proven in multiple locations around the world. The result is always the same …increasing power costs making manufacturing less competitive.

"Grid scale" is a ridiculous assumption….

Why do you think most developed countries have adopted grid systems ?
..it is not just to provide something for birds to sit on,…the are major advantages in linking distributed generation sources,..(even more so if those generators are intermittent and unpredictable !)

 

[bananu7]

I’m not insisting anything, i am just saying that Solar and wind have a very limited practical application.
When it comes to providing bulk power on a National scale, they can never be ecnomically viable

It's true that intermittent power generation tapers off in efficiency when it replaces progressively more and more conventional power sources, but that doesn't have to be the case. With more efficient storage, such as hydrodynamic plants, you can keep a grid running on a source that only produces during the day. And if you remove the national subsidies for fossil fuels, instead replacing them with penalties for pollution (and the damage it causes), the break-even point is actually very close.

All renewable energy is solar energy, and we're ramping it up at an unprecedented rate. What used to be "national-scale" production just a few decades ago is realized purely by renewables nowadays. So the effort right now is rightly focused on storage, which allows for complete fossil fuel replacement - both on the national scale and in microinstallations (of which an increasing amount is able to run completely self-sufficiently off-grid - although having a day-night and seasonal cycle balancing by tieing the entire planet together is an interesting concept in itself).

 

[classicalgas]

YES ! That is exactly the point i was trying to make you see.
You dont “just collect” sunlight or wind,..a lot of equipment and infrastructure is required befor that energy is useable. Even a Roof top solar system needs thousands of dollars of equipment before the energy is available to use.
( But i can just burn wood or coal to to heat my house, cook food, and provide light if neccessary !)

I’m not insisting anything, i am just saying that Solar and wind have a very limited practical application.
When it comes to providing bulk power on a National scale, they can never be ecnomically viable, as have been proven in multiple locations around the world. The result is always the same …increasing power costs making manufacturing less competitive.

Why do you think most developed countries have adopted grid systems ?
..it is not just to provide something for birds to sit on,…the are major advantages in linking distributed generation sources,..(even more so if those generators are intermittent and unpredictable !)

You're continuing to show off your ignorance. You do "just collect" sunlight, it's energy waiting, almost anywhere on earth, to be converted to a more useful form. It doesn't require any of the mining or refining or transport that fossil fuels do.

Fossil fuels require an entire industry to just get fuel to the power plant. PV and wind do not. Is that simple enough a statement for you to grasp?

Wind and solar clearly have massive applications,. If they didn't, the proportion of investment in solar world wide wouldn't be growing at double digit rates , while fossil fuel power is shrinking (as a percentage of grid power)

Most countries started down the grid power route before PV became as cheap as it is now. Cities will probably need grid power for another decade or two (until PV conversion efficiencies hit 40% or so) Rural areas no longer need to be on the grid in much of the world.


"But i can just burn wood or to to heat my house, cook food, and provide light if neccessary !)"...sure you can..., after you cut it, split it, dry it, and move it to your house. That's assuming there's a source within a few miles of you. In much of the world there isn't, so you're stuck burning cow dung,...which is shit at running pumps and computers.That's why PV pannel;s are common in third world countries.


"Reality is that significant size solar facilities ( 100+ MW) are constructed on sunbelt areas and require new transmission infrastructure to connect to grid distributor networks."...more transmission infrastructure is needed (in the industrial countries, anyway ) no matter what the energy source. You keep pretending that it's all or nothing, massive solar farms OR smaller local
production. That just exposes your ignorance.

You keep ignoring the fact that grid electricity is rleatively new ( at most a hundred years old, in much of the world, less than fifty ) the industrial revolution ran for over two huindred years on localy produced, decentralised, , non grid power

 

[Hillhater]

You do "just collect" sunlight, it's energy waiting, almost anywhere on earth, to be converted to a more useful form. It doesn't require any of the mining or refining or transport that fossil fuels do.

But its only available 50% of the time at best, (and hardly available at all in many areas)
Why do you continue to ignor the need for the thousands of (chinese) PV panels, inverters, syncronisers, HV transformers, and the ADDITIONAL transmission lines from remote locations. AND,..all those battery farms / back up systems required for a continuous supply ?….
None of that is simple or cheap.

grid electricity is rleatively new ( at most a hundred years old, in much of the world, less than fifty ) the industrial revolution ran for over two huindred years on localy produced, decentralised, , non grid power

Practical electrical power , motors etc , was not available until the end of the 19th century. So obviously most of the Industrial revolution occured before electricity was available, and was powered by water wheels, and Steam (coal fired !). Obviously locally generated.
Grid connections were only practical once large capacity (economical) generators were developed in the start of the 20th century.
Why do you think modern industrial consumers , Data Centers, Smelters, etc , shy away from solar or wind supply power contracts ?

 

[bananu7]

Why do you continue to ignor the need for the thousands of (chinese) PV panels, inverters, syncronisers, HV transformers, and the ADDITIONAL transmission lines from remote locations. AND,..all those battery farms / back up systems required for a continuous supply ?….
None of that is simple or cheap.

Yeah, but that's still necessary for a fossil fuel grid, as i think someone has pointed out already. If you're plugging PVs into an existing grid, you can't blame the solar power for the grid's complexity.

Plugging DC sources into an AC grid used to be a much bigger problem, but we have those things called transistors now and it's getting massively cheap and easy to do. In fact, it's also why a lot of HV links are utilizing or transitioning to DC, precisely to avoid grid synchronisation issues. Cheap and easy DC conversion and control gave us an easier way to control PMSM motors which power a good portion of our electric vehicles. This ties together with better battery tech that can be used for both mobility and grid stabilisation. It can't be analysed individually, we're building a complete system with the renewable production at its core, so evaluating today's renewable performance in a yesterday's power grid is misguided at best.

Why do you think modern industrial consumers , Data Centers, Smelters, etc , shy away from solar or wind supply power contracts ?

Do they, though? Tracking the Transition to Renewable Energy Across Data Centers- Cedara Resources

 

[Hillhater]

Yeah, but that's still necessary for a fossil fuel grid,

Obviously, but CG does not seem to accept that similar infrastructure,, in addition to the millions of PV panels, inverters, etc are required for a solar generation system.
Then consider the need for backup power when there is no sun….battery farms, etc, and additional transmission lines to get that power from the deserts to the cities……then figure out what the FULL SYSTEM cost actually is for solar power. !

a lot of HV links are utilizing or transitioning to DC, precisely to avoid grid synchronisation issues

HVDC transmission does not avoid synchronisation issues. It still has to be done wherever that power is connected to an AC supply system. ( and HVDC transmission is not cheap )

Do they, though?

you do understand what is meant by statements like this….?

Under Microsoft’s sustainability commitment, they will need to set up additional PPAs to contract green energy for all of the carbon-emitting electricity used by their data centers, buildings, and campuses….…

.. With a PPA in place, a company commits to purchasing renewable energy from projects that are set to launch in the future for a set period at a specific price

 

[bananu7]

Obviously, but CG does not seem to accept that similar infrastructure,, in addition to the millions of PV panels, inverters, etc are required for a solar generation system.

Well, they're not strictly necessary. That's kind of one thing that PVs have over fossil fuels, that you can build a PERMANENT (not like a diesel generator) microinstallation with them, powering a single sensor, camera, small cabin or even a bunch of houses (especially in the developing areas). While the panels. control units and energy storage are currently quite expensive, being able to deploy them in a middle of nowhere to have constant, reliable power that doesn't require fuel is already a gamechanger for a lot of people around the globe.

While in the XIX and XXth century a local steam engine powered by an endless supply of coal could be seen as a viable power generator, you have to consider how much did it actually produce. The power output from a state-of-the-art engine, which took years to to build, dozens of people to maintain, and tons of coal can nowadays be matched by a small plot of land covered by solar panels maintained (and that's already a bit of a stretch, as they require virtually no maintenance in comparison) by a single person.

Of course I hope I don't have to explain why a diesel generator can't be considered a "local" or "locally sourced" alternative when you take the massive oil industry that produces fuel for it into account.

HVDC transmission does not avoid synchronisation issues. It still has to be done wherever that power is connected to an AC supply system. ( and HVDC transmission is not cheap )

Yes, but that is a different (and much easier, with today's technology) problem than synchronising two AC grids. This is the main reason why they're used, after all - otherwise noone would bother. And that touches on the other part of this quote, price. It doesn't really matter if it's "cheap" or "expensive", as for HVDC we're talking national scale here. It's more about whether it's economically viable compared to other options. It is, so it's being increasingly used.

The fact that HVDC kind of lends itself better to DC power production (as opposed to production from spinning magnets fast) is undoubtedly a factor, and also why it might seem that the renewable sources have unrealistic needs for the grid. You could think that if you, again, tried to shoehorn a completely different generation scheme into a grid that was designed for something else. It will be a costly transition to move to renewables, but no doubt a worthwhile one. And in developing regions, they can start with a proper infrastructure from scratch, designed for renewables from the ground up.

you do understand what is meant by statements like this….?

That our plans for renewable consumption are more ambitious than our plans for renewable production. Clearly we need more solar panels!
And jokes aside, dynamic surge pricing for electricity can offer a significant boost for companies that can make use of it. We've already seen e.g. cryptocurrency mining or AI datacenters moving closer to PV plants, as that heavily offsets the computation cost. With the national infrastructure not fully in place yet, commercializing the energy use during peak/off-peak hours puts the solution in the hands of consumers, who can manage their load, use appropriate storage and come out ahead. At the end, everybody wins.

 

[ZeroEm]

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

lithium is in salt water, don't hear anyone complaining about it being on the beaches.

 

[dgc]

All I will say, we were all buggered one way or the other from when man first walked on the earth.

 

[classicalgas]

Obviously, but CG does not seem to accept that similar infrastructure,, in addition to the millions of PV panels, inverters, etc are required for a solar generation system.
Then consider the need for backup power when there is no sun….battery farms, etc, and additional transmission lines to get that power from the deserts to the cities……then figure out what the FULL SYSTEM cost actually is for solar power. !

HVDC transmission does not avoid synchronisation issues. It still has to be done wherever that power is connected to an AC supply system. ( and HVDC transmission is not cheap )

you do understand what is meant by statements like this….?

You're continuing to say stupid things.

PV does not require the infrastructure to make fuel that fossil powered generation does. If you can't grasp this basic fact, you don't belong in a discussion of power sources, you don't have the level of intelligence to usefully participate.

All other grid infrastructure issues apply across the board to all fuel (energy) sources. Load balancing against power draw has been traditionally done using quick response generating plants (mostly NG and hydro now) but batteries are easier, quicker to respond, and require less maintenance.

PV plants are faster to build, and cheaper to run than the same power from coal, NG, or nukes.

EVEN WHEN YOU ADD THE COST OF EXTRA CAPACITY AND ENERGY STORAGE.

One more time...that's why fossil fuels are shrinking as a percent of world generation capacity..THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PV.

PV systems do not need to be sited remotely ( your stupid insistence on "covering vast deserts" just shows off your ignorance ) Yes, china sites a lot of their big PV generation in deserts...there's no better use for that land.


"Why do you think modern industrial consumers , Data Centers, Smelters, etc , shy away from solar or wind supply power contracts ?"

You're wrong, there. Smelters are contracting for PV power. So are data centers.

Edify Energy hybrid power station to supply Rio Tinto aluminium smelter

Edify Energy’s proposed solar power station in Queensland will supply 90% of its power and battery storage capacity to mining giant Rio Tinto’s Gladstone aluminium operations, following the signing between them of two hybrid services agreements.

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

US steel mill to get powered by 300 MW of solar

The iron and steel sector is the 'world’s largest industrial source of climate pollution.' This steel mill in Pueblo, Colorado, will be the first in North America to rely on solar power.

www.pv-magazine.com

Atlas Renewable Energy, Hydro Rein commission 438MW solar project in Brazil

Solar developers Atlas Renewable Energy and Hydro Rein have started commercial operation of a 438MW solar PV project in Brazil.

www.pv-tech.org

Mojave Micro Mill Is First US Solar-Powered Steel Mill - CleanTechnica

The new Mojave Micro Mill near Bakersfield, the first new steel mill built in California in 50 years, will be powered by renewable energy.

cleantechnica.com

Timet To Power Titanium Factory With Local Solar Installation In West Virginia - CleanTechnica

A new titanium facility in West Virginia will be powered by an on-site solar and battery storage installation, a first for the industry.

cleantechnica.com

Note that the last one is a Berkshire Hathaway project...you know, Warren Buffet?

"Grid connections were only practical once large capacity (economical) generators were developed in the start of the 20th century."...yet the industrial revolution did just fine for two hundred years on local , non grid power. Mill and factory owners built and ran their own powerplants. No grid needed.

If PV had been available at current costs and efficiency, there would have been no reason for rural electrification (a large percentage of the US grid serves non urban areas ) If PV had been available in its current form in the19th century, all but the most energy intensive manufacturing would be powered that way...it's cheap and simple

In rural SE Asia, it's common to see transportation repair and fabrication shops converting scrapped scooters into three wheel cargo haulers, or converting wrecked cars to jitneys ( mass transit ) These guys remove broken bolts by welding metal to the bolt down in the hole in the casting, using a bank of old car batteries as the welder (no welding machine) They weld these trike chassis together with the same method, charging the batteries from old solar panels on the roof of the dirt floored, bamboo hut they work in.

No grid, no generator, no fossil fuel (except to run the scooters)