Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[sendler2112]

I think the "agenda" of forward thinking groups is trying to come up with a functional replacement for our current debt/ growth based economic system which concentrates wealth in the top 0.1% due to the over supply of labor having no leverage. They are trying to come up with a viable replacement for our current immense one time stroboscopic pulse of carbon energy which will be leaving us long before we are ready to leave it since energy underpins everything and we have to try to keep growing at 3%. Any 15 year old can easily understand that continued exponential growth in a system with limited nonrenwable resources will eventually reach it's limit and tip back down. And they are marching to force all the rest of us to start doing the right thing to preserve a functional social and eco system for the next 1000 generations. Enough is enough.

 

[Cephalotus]

Because most NMC batteries in use today are NMC 111 - and manufacturers are moving rapidly to 622 and 811.

That may/maynot be true,..but “most” EVs do not use NMC at all !

Most EV use NMC today with the exception of Tesla (NCA) and some Chinese manufacturers (LFP). The target auidence for this study is Germany and here neither Tesla nor the Chinese car companies are significant. *)

If you have an actual study that shows a detailed material LCA / GWP analyses of LFP or NCA batteries please feel free to post it and contribute more information to this thread instead of just critisize what exists for nothing.

I posted the information because one person here claimed that nickel is "the problem". It isn't, not in compariosn with other materials.

*) https://thedriven.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/bmw-ev-share-germany.jpg

 

[jonescg]

By the way - it is well documented that LFP is officially more expensive than NMC.

On a $ per kWh basis, retail pricing for NMC is US$230 per kWh while LFP is about US$250. Why? Because the energy density is twice as poor.So even though the materials cost of LFP is cheaper per kg, the final energy density is what breaks it.

 

[TheBeastie]

I think as time goes on all the metals used to make lithium batteries will go up considerably

For example, take the company Queensland Nickel which has happens to have "open and close" operations news on a frequent basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Nickel
https://goo.gl/maps/4wY6JZ8dKJ9ttxzS9
What makes this company viable or not is whether it can get cheap energy to continue to run and be profitable vs other nickel miners/refiners around the world.

If the quality of the raw nickel ore goes down then it needs to find access to cheaper energy to compete with its competitors globally to continue.
This is one of the reasons why Queensland shows up remarkably dark on EM, it's to have cheap energy to produce the raw metals for batteries/EVs so people can have affordable/cheap EVs.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-QLD&remote=true

China with its 10km2 radioactive sludge lake was built with the same mind-frame, to have cheap elements refined.
But just like how China has banned importing rubbish for recycling as it increases its environmental standards for a better quality of living so will the cheaply made/refined metals.

As long as people demand a cleaner environment in Queensland etc the only direction the price of metals will go is upwards as there will be demands for more energy to refine metals in a cleaner method. The only way to make a process cleaner is to use more energy to clean up after the process is complete. Even Queensland Nickel has a very dirty mine site that still needs to be cleaned up if its never to re-open.
The cost is always more energy.

Mining and refining metals is a dirty and secretive industry, no one wants to tell people they make radioactive sludge lakes for a living
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
or burn 10 times the amount of coal they were 10 years ago because the quality of ore they refine has diminished.

The reason this PDF was produced and made public, is due to the fact that, for a nickel mine, its creators were PROUD of the idea they could mine and refine nickel and produce merely 57.9 times its own weight in co2, quote "57.9 tonnes of co2 emitted per 1 tonne of nickel."
https://epa.tas.gov.au/documents/proto%20resources%20-%20barnes%20hill%20nickel%20laterite%20project%20dpemp.pdf
^This document goes in detail for nickel mining/refining in Tasmania which is almost entirely hydro electricity based to produce merely 57 tonnes of co2 for every tonne of nickel produced.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-TAS&remote=true

Like this chart shows, producing nickel at over 120 tonnes of co2 for every single tonne of nickel produced is not uncommon.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/download/file.php?id=251471&mode=view
MAY 3, 2019 Exclusive: Tesla expects global shortage of electric vehicle battery minerals -sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-lithium-electric-tesla-exclusive-int-idUSKCN1S81QI
Tesla Inc expects global shortages of nickel, copper and other electric-vehicle battery minerals down the road due to underinvestment in the mining sector, the company’s global supply manager for battery metals told an industry conference on Thursday, according to two sources.

The company, a major minerals consumer, has rarely talked publicly about its views on the metals industry. Copper, nickel, lithium and related minerals are key components used to make electric-vehicle batteries

will consume about 1.5 million tonnes of copper by 2030, up from 38,000 tonnes today, according to data from consultancy BSRIA

All the facts point to the reality that EV's are really about CO2 displacement, the process of pre-emitting or putting the co2 somewhere else for the vehicle to work. In fact, it works out so well that it almost seems to be a law of physics in some way, perhaps because everything is built on the back of fossil fuel, even solar/wind contraptions.

Aside from EV's seemingly having a neutral or worse "co2 displacement law", so does the lifetime co2 footprint of solar panels according to this study.



As time goes on, and IMO on a pretty short timeline basis, the energy required and the co2 emissions will only continue to go up as the most easily mined raw metal ore deposits get used up.

 

[billvon]

No, capitalism still drives those areas, those agencies simply provide regulatory control over those areas, within a capitalist organisations.

Ding ding ding! And the same thing will happen with renewable energy. Governments will provide requirements and regulations to ensure a smooth phase-in of renewable energy. No "socialist society."

You are still confusing anything providing a social benefit , with a a socialist agenda.

And you are trying to scare people by labeling anything renewable with the term "socialist agenda." It's not working. From a Politico article:
==============
Republicans could have a Green New Deal problem
Polling suggests that the GOP risks turning off younger voters en masse by portraying the climate change plan as a socialist fantasy.

ZACK COLMAN 05/03/2019 05:04 AM EDT

The GOP is seizing on the "Green New Deal" to demonize vulnerable Democrats in 2020 — but some Republicans warn it could do long-term damage to the party.

Though Republicans have ignored climate change in past elections, it’s now a key part of their 2020 strategy, especially in House races. They’re hoping to define the Green New Deal as an expensive socialist gambit dreamed up by liberal superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that will ban cows and planes. Though mostly inaccurate, it's a portrayal they believe will scare independent voters in key districts.

But the move could come at a cost: The near- and long-term loss of millennials and Generation Z voters, a growing slice of the electorate that wants federal climate change action to a greater degree than their elders. A recent Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics survey found 74 percent of likely general election voters under 30 disapprove of President Donald Trump’s climate change performance and 50 percent call climate change “a crisis” that “demands urgent action.” Another 25 percent called it “a problem.”

The data has Republican pollsters and current and former lawmakers warning that relentless mocking of the Green New Deal — but more critically, President Donald Trump’s dismissal of climate change as a hoax — could jeopardize the GOP’s ability to capture and cement a congressional majority. . . .

Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who was defeated in 2018 by a Democrat in a South Florida district dealing with rising sea levels, echoed the warning.

“The energy surrounding the Green New Deal means there are a lot of Americans that want to see Congress take bold action to lower emissions,” Curbelo said. "[Republicans] will alienate younger voters if they criticize without offering an alternative.”
===============================

You need to “get over” your rose tinted vision of a “decarbonised” future and look at the implications of the agenda’s of groups like GND, UN, Get Up, etc etc.

Again, people used exactly the same arguments against the original New Deal, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FAA etc. Cry "WOLF!" enough and people start ignoring you.

 

[billvon]

Most EV use NMC today with the exception of Tesla (NCA) and some Chinese manufacturers (LFP).

Yep.

Nissan Leaf - NMC.
Chrysler Pacifica PHEV - NMC.
Chevy Bolt - NMC. (622 for now, going to 811 soon.)
Chevy Volt PHEV - NMC.
BMW i3 EV - NMC.

That's why most of the talks at IBC 2019 were about NMC formulations.

 

[Cephalotus]

Nickel is mainly used for stainless steel like V2A or V4A.

Price has always been very volatile, the last extrem spike has been up to 50,000USD/t in 2007.

I very much doubt that nickel is a limiting factor for the batteries of electric cars. Even lead and especially platinum/palladium are more critical when we keep building more new ICE cars.

graphite could be temporarily. Otherwise Lithium itself and cobalt.

 

[billvon]

graphite could be temporarily. Otherwise Lithium itself and cobalt.

Silicon anode may help with the graphite issue; it is very close to reality, and a few vendors (Enovix, Hipower) are now selling Si-anode batteries.

 

[Cephalotus]

graphite could be temporarily. Otherwise Lithium itself and cobalt.

Silicon anode may help with the graphite issue; it is very close to reality, and a few vendors (Enovix, Hipower) are now selling Si-anode batteries.

Graphite is not rare. Just production capacity could be a temporary(!) bottleneck. Same thing hapend with silicon at 2005-2006 when demand from the solar indutry exploded.. Nobody would argue that silicon is rare.

 

[Hillhater]

Most EV use NMC today with the exception of Tesla (NCA) and some Chinese manufacturers (LFP).

When you exclude Tesla and “some Chinese” EV producers, you are excluding MOST of the current EV production.
But OK, keep your Eurocentric view, but tell me, how many of those NMC packs are actually using a 1:1:1 chemistry ?
And...am i correct in reading that the main source of CO2 reduction in those battery comparisons by 2030, is from the “strom” (electricity) used in manufacture ?

 

[Cephalotus]

When you exclude Tesla and “some Chinese” EV producers, you are excluding MOST of the current EV production.
But OK, keep your Eurocentric view,

Yes, that's our view and here Tesla had an EV/PHEV market share of 3% in 2018, Chinese car makers are close to zero.

If you have actual data in similar quality for NCA and LFP or LTO cells please provide those.

but tell me, how many of those NMC packs are actually using a 1:1:1 chemistry ?

I don't know. If you do, please tell us.

And...am i correct in reading that the main source of CO2 reduction in those battery comparisons by 2030, is from the “strom” (electricity) used in manufacture ?

This is correct as you can see from the charts. Obviously it is based on a "scenario" with the expected European grid mix for electriicty in 2030, because noone is able to predict future technology.

Volkswagen for example plans to "decarbonise" it's entire supply chain for its electric vehicle production:

https://de.scribd.com/document/399723445/ID-INSIGHTS-Sustainable-E-Mobility#fullscreen&from_embed

In the future this should also include mining the ores. Those options are a possibility in w world powered by solar, wind and electric vehicles, but obviously not in your vision of a world that burns all oil and coal until nothing is left.

 

[Hillhater]

If you have actual data in similar quality for NCA and LFP or LTO cells please provide those.

I wasnt looking , or offering, comparisons.
The question was... why use 1:1:1 as a base line , when it is not a common EV chemistry

but tell me, how many of those NMC packs are actually using a 1:1:1 chemistry ?

I don't know. If you do, please tell us.

I dont know either...
...But i do know that the two biggest sellers ..BMW and VW... certainly do not..
...and i doubt few if any, of the others do either.

And...am i correct in reading that the main source of CO2 reduction in those battery comparisons by 2030, is from the “strom” (electricity) used in manufacture ?

This is correct as you can see from the charts. Obviously it is based on a "scenario" with the expected European grid mix for electriicty in 2030, because noone is able to predict future technology. ....

So , pure speculation then ?
Not a very convincing comparison really....
.... start with a non representative base model , and compare it to a totally speculative future estimate .

 

[billvon]

The question was... why use 1:1:1 as a base line , when it is not a common EV chemistry.

It was the most common chemistry for quite a while. Now most people have switched to 6:2:2. 8:1:1 is next.

 

[Hillhater]

Not really the “most common “ for EVs.
The biggest selling EV..the BYD’s never used it, Leaf never used it, Tesla never used it, BMW never used it, VW started with 6:2:2, and will be in 8:1:1 by the end of the year. As will most LG based EV packs.
I suspect by 2030 8:1:1 will be a distant memory,... let alone 6:2:2

 

[sendler2112]

New, open source computer based system modeling tool project. MEDEAS "Modelling the Energy Development under Environmental And Socioeconomic constraints" aims to create a new computational model that will define the future of the energy system in Europe, taking into account physical as well as social constraints.
.
Intro video here
.
https://youtu.be/ExaFpPJKdnE
.
.

 

[sendler2112]

We are running short of raw materials for batteries already and we have barely just begun to start replacing the 1 billion light vehicles on the road today.
"If automakers can't get battery cells and battery makers can't get the minerals they need to make them, the downward trend in the price of lithium batteries could be interrupted. That could delay not only the rollout of individual new models but also push back the time when electric vehicles reach cost parity with internal-combustion ones.

Anybody have an active mining claim to spare?"
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122906_could-battery-lawsuits-material-shortages-delay-some-evs
.

 

[Hillhater]

EV pricing certainly still has some way to go, and these new Kia/Hyundai EVs highlight the situation because they have ICE powered duplicates.
I have not checked the US pricing, but in Australia where there are currently no subsidies/rebates for EV purchase , the 64kWh Kona EV is listed at Au$60,000 for the base model ( us$43,000) ..+$2000 for the home charger ?.
( the higher spec with such luxuries as LED lights, phone charger, electric seats, etc..is +$5,000)
Two details highlight the EV problem....
The equivalent base model Kona ICE is Au$30,000. (Us$ 21,500) ..half the price of the EV version !
And, hyundai have revealed that a replacement battery pack is priced at Au$36,000, ..which explain’s the main reason for the price difference, and , although you cannot read much into manufacturers retail pricing,...suggests EV pack prices are not dropping as fast as predicted over the past few years. ( GM quoted Au$23,000 for a Bolt 60kWh pack 2 years ago .. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110881_how-much-is-a-replacement-chevy-bolt-ev-electric-car-battery )
I do not see manufacturing improvements or production volumes being able to significantly reduce these pack prices sufficiently to make EVs cost competitive. There will need to be a major technology change in cell/battery pack systems to enable cost reductions and avoid any material limitations.

 

[jonescg]

Unfortunately the 'base' trim of all EVs never get released early. So the equivalent ICE Kona is actually their Highlander spec, which is about $44k - you know, leather this, sat-nav that, auto-lane keeping etc. The price differential between equivalent trim vehicles is more like a 25% premium.

There's a lot of lithium, nickel, cobalt and copper exploration happening in WA right now. We have known for a long time that reserves exist for these metals, but they were never fully explored. The motivation to find more is now upon them. Will there be enough? Probably, but at a cost, at least in the near term. Recycling will definitely make up any shortfall, and also changes in the way we view vehicle ownership.

Electric motorcycles and scooters shold be given priority - an electric bike with 6 kWh will give you 100 km range and move one person. An electric car with 24 kWh will give you 100 km range and a roof over your head. And still move one person. If cities like Perth and LA hadn't been allowed to be developed so badly, we wouldn't need as many cars.

 

[Hillhater]

There obviously are many differences between the EV and the ICE models,.. performance, weight, mechanicals (even brakes) , wheels/tyres, air con system , etc etc....
..but trim spec levels are not an issue !
I guess you chose the AWD, diesel, DCT 7 speed Highlander pack to get to $44k, ?? ..when the only significant spec difference between the $30k ,Petrol , Elite 2WD , and the $60k EV , ..is a HUD unit !
https://www.hyundai.com.au/cars/suvs/kona/specifications
You could get the Highlander spec ICE for $36k if you really wanted that HUD unit !
...or you could have the base model (pov’ pack) Kona ICE for just $23k. ( practically 1/3 the cost of the “base” EV, and ony 2/3 the price of the EV battery pack alone ! )
Unfortunately ,if you want the EV you have only 2 choices ..$62k , or $67k for the “Highlander” package !
You cant hide the cost difference as a trim difference, EVs are obviously crazy expensive to produce currently, and much of that difference is the battery cost, which dispite all the wishfull thinking and talk, is not getting cheaper at the rates predicted.

 

[billvon]

"If automakers can't get battery cells and battery makers can't get the minerals they need to make them, the downward trend in the price of lithium batteries could be interrupted. That could delay not only the rollout of individual new models but also push back the time when electric vehicles reach cost parity with internal-combustion ones.

A big battery (say a Tesla 90kwhr) has about 10 lbs of cobalt and 140 lbs of lithium in it. And it's recyclable, although currently raw materials are so cheap that it's not worth it. And you can use the battery afterwards for other things, giving it a long lifetime overall.

Compare that to an ICE that takes 32,000 lbs of gasoline over a 10 year lifetime. And that's NOT recyclable. Plus all the metals and plastics that the ICE engine system is made of, of course - which includes small amounts of platinum and palladium.


.

 

[Hillhater]

I think you will find that Tesla battery only has less than 30 lbs of actual lithium metal in it.
The 140 lbs sometimes quoted is a LCE (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) figure.
The auto industry has a long history of reuse ( salvage yards, used spares, etc) and have always been leaders in recycling of metals ( salvage companies will pay you for your wrecked scrapper).
They were also one of the first industries to use coding information on plastic components to identify different materials.

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh ! ... even M Mann admits ( with a bunch of feeble excuses), that the Climate Models have “ systematic deficiencies” and are overestimating the increase in temperatures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

 

[Chalo]

Meanwhile the deniers have no science, no models, no working theory-- only deficiencies and nothing else.

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh, but they do !
.. its just that you have your eyes closed, fingers in your ears, and whistling dixie ....
....because you dont want to see or hear them.

 

[billvon]

Ahh, but they do !

Indeed they do! Here are a few compared to IPCC predictions: