Featured Long-Range EVs Are The Antithesis Of Efficiency And Sustainability

Most pickup trucks drive around most of the time with nothing in the flatbed.
Most SUVs with 4 wheel drive are not driving off-road most of the time. Some never of the time.
Most people commute less than 25 miles in their vehicles but drive around with gas tanks 10-20 times that large.

Mike

 

...and most 4-5 passenger Prii are occupied only by a driver most of the time.

 

Okay.


That is from your linked article. Let's consider lithium.

The Greenbushes mine in Australia is one of the largest lithium mines in the world. It is a lithium rock mine, as oppose to a brine mine, which yields lithium in a form needed for batteries. It is undergoing an expansion.
"The planned expansion would allow Greenbushes mine to increase lithium concentrate annual output to ~1.95M tonnes(metric ton)."
Greenbushes lithium mine receives expansion approval - Albemarle Corporation (NYSE:ALB) | Seeking Alpha
That's an 12,500 tpa increase of lithium oxide, which is the form used for Li-ion batteries, from just one mine. That isn't the only mine expanding, and new ones are breaking ground. There is also plenty of lithium in the ground. • Lithium reserves worldwide top countries 2018 | Statistic Between the big four producers, there is 13.7 million tonnes of it in reserve, known extractable amounts. Estimated resources are much higher.

I have no idea what form of lithium the chart is quoting. The author does say requirement number is for an 88% switch from ICE to EV, which is more than required for EVs to have an impact. I also don't know what he means by production base. Is it virgin material or does it include recycled? Going from this report, I'm guessing it is virgin. Copper production growing by 1m tonnes a year – MINING.COM According to it copper production(from mines) will reach 26.5 million tonnes this year based on the current 4% growth. If Peterson isn't lying about the figures there, he is using outdated ones.

Copper and nickel are heavily recycled. Lithium isn't now because there isn't a demand at the moment. That will change, and even if the recycled material isn't usable for batteries, it is for other uses(glass and ceramics are big ones).

There are issues with Cobalt that we don't need to get into here. I just mention it because Li-ion producers are slready working to reduce the needed amount. Cobalt free batteries may become thing.

I didn't look at the hybrid vs. EV numbers. That should be kept to the other thread. I'll just say switching ICE to any hybrid is a good goal, but hybrid and EV isn't an either or thing.

 

I try really hard to keep focused on threads that actually help people with car repairs, not debate for the sake of debate. But then there's the trollish inclination of some who see stuff online and say cool, I'll post this anti-battery car BS to a battery oriented car website and watch everyone flip out and then then deny that I represent that which I'm posting about because I've been driving a Prius for 15years... Please!!! Let's all keep focused on what we want to see more of in the world and not waste time trying to rile each other up with useless anti-battery powered car propaganda.

 

And we used to fight expansion of Nickel mines in Southern Oregon back when NiMH was the only way to power a car... Lithium-ion may be the star of the moment, but cars a dozen years from now will be most likely use far less lithium and rare earth metals because it's a necessity if electric cars are going to work at scale.

So why not a more forward-looking discussion about Sodium-ion, or lithium-sulfur, or solid state technologies? Or how about innovations with pairing capacitors with battery packs to extend range? Or how about the science that's building microscopic channels into steel in what's akin to a circulatory system that could be packed with electrolyte or solid state electron magic?

 

At one time half of cars were EVs with a lead acid battery pack.

Lead which is much rarer than lithium is in every car, boat, bus etc on the planet.

I’m certain we can find things to make batteries from

Magnesium, Calcium and Sodium all work as well as carbon nanotubes, nothing more common than carbon

 

Elon Musk's SpaceX, or rocket science in general, has been smashing its head against the very harsh limitations of using the hydrogen atom as fuel. It's not going to be as viable as electricity for a long, long time... SpaceX landing on mars one day, perhaps the greatest tech advancement in our lifetimes, is not going to be a hydrogen thing because methane is so much more practical in so many ways.

Look no further than what happened when Germany didn't have enough helium and used hydrogen instead... Toyota and the Hindenburg share a similar future in this regard.

 

Took another look at the Tesla shorter's article, because something felt off about the car numbers. Well, he uses the Model S as an example instead of the higher selling Model 3. Is it because the 3 is just arriving in the UK, or because it is more efficient with smaller battery pack. Since he used the Eco for the Prius example, it must be the first former.

Then I somehow missed this the first time through.
"While the Prius L-eco does a great job of conserving fuel with a small engine and a small battery, the plug-ins are all about energy substitution. For every gallon of fuel they don't burn, they use 6.7 to 9.0 kWh of electricity."
What slight of hand BS is this?

A gallon of gasoline contains 33.7kWh of energy(the amount varies). So let's do a like to like comparison of energy for the example cars used in the article.
Average car: 14,437 kWh
Prius Eco: 6,908 kWh
Prime: 3,764 kWh
Model S: 3,450 kWh
Model 3: 2,990 kWh
The losses for the electricity production and transmission need to be pretty bad for for one the most efficient hybrids to beat an efficient BEV.

Hybrids are an effective way of reducing fossil fuel use. But being more effective doesn't make the plug in not effective at all.
The article's title, "Long-Range EVs Are The Antithesis Of Efficiency And Sustainability," is false. There may be issues with battery supplies in the near future, but then non-plug in hybrids are still burning a non-renewable fuel.

Toyta wants to have a solid state battery demo ready for the Olympics. That does not mean the battery will be ready for a consumer car.

A FCEV still needs at least a full hybrid sized battery. Then the materials for the fuel stack and motor(platinum, copper) are rarer than those for an engine(iron or aluminum). But yes, the costs will come down with mass production.

The hold up is the hydrogen infrastructure. It will cost billions for the US. CNG hybrids would yield the majority of the benefits of hydrogen FCEVs. A Camry hybrid using CNG will go about as far as a Mirai on the same amount of natural gas, and IIRC, I didn't include the extra energy for compressing and chilling the hydrogen back when I did the math. We can make methane, and many other fuels, renewably. Costs increase, but that is also true of renewable hydrogen.

 

NASA has done this multiple times (8 or 9), with another rover launching mid-2020. Even the Soviets and European Space Agency landed failed craft on Mars. No credit to them?

 

his point may be that limited supplies shouldn't be used in larger batteries, but that doesn't make him right

 

It's important sometimes to understand 'motive'. Good example here (from Wiki) is Seeking Alpha. It's a bunch of crowd-sourced content writers - writing articles relating to financial markets. So . . . w/ that understanding, consider the site's dilemma. Their problem is they try to get authors to always make claims in their articles, because it gets "clicks" .... & sounds important. But the truth is - most self proclaiming authors don't have the training/understanding/data/work ethic to competently give "actionable" advice - positive or negative, so they frequently making quasi actionable claims, w/out the actual info or record to back it up, & they skip doing balanced analysis. So - like much of our modern day hysterical fake news media - they inevitably go towards negative to get attention. Negativity is lazy - & easy. If by chance, the author is correct, they'll point out, "see? .... am i not smart? .... wise? in tune?
But - if good things happen (no tidal wave ... no sky is falling) ... the public is so caught up in "success" ... "no disaster" - that readers forget to go stone to death, the false prophet/a$$-hat/gloom&doom/Eeyore types ... which unfortunately - empowers them to continue on their way ... hoping to get it right eventually, so that in their own minds, it'll make them look smart.
Eventually, the odds will be that they will finally get some financial guesses correct - further enabling their ilk. In Seeking Alpha's case, (not all, but) some of the hostile authors have been directly linked to individuals & firms known for shorting tesla stock. ie; consider the source. It's really not a case of needing to attack those who are on to Seeking Alpha, with, "we better get YOUR opinion to see if YOU approve if it's news is worthy".
So - keep in mind who it is when Seeking Alpha type sites are the source of authority, & whether or not it is, or if it's just fodder, as @Trollbait so adequately points out ... even the subtlety they use. That said, often it's the case, those who link to these kinds of sites, have their own ax to grind - and use these kinds of sites to give weight to thoughts that the ax grinder is already predisposed to anyway.
.

 

I prefer to read the article and see if there is anything of interest. If it's crap I move on.

 

one reason to hate Tesla (not just prius pete), if you love/own a Prius, is because Prius sales are sinking (not so much in vogue anymore?) ... and even Toyota admits, Tesla is much to blame;
Tesla Model 3 is affecting Prius sales, admits Toyota - though still not convinced on EVs - Electrek
There was similar hate by us Prius fans when the Volt was grabbing a ton of PHEV / HEV sales. Even with stopping production a month or two ago (in the US) - their total sales are still ahead of other manufacturers. Now, the angst has significantly died down.
.

 

I don't hate any car manufacturer. I either buy their cars or not, that's all. Not even a bit of angst.

 

That is point of the title and what I quoted.

Discussed here: Hybrids offer fastest route to reduce CO2, says Emissions Analytics | PriusChat
Nobody is denying the premise, just that the lack of batteries is short term.

Peterson is spinning and manipulating information to make it seem there is a long term issue for his financial gain. He discloses being a Tesla shorter in the footnote.
The 2018 copper production figures he gives are 2 million tonnes low, leaving the other numbers he presents suspect. The material amounts needed by 2035 from Bernstein Research are for reaching 88% ICE to EV transition. Bernstein is predicting EV sales by that time will reach 40%. They are others BEVs are also saying will reach cost parity with ICE cars in the next few years, which doesn't jive if many of those battery materials will be in short supply. Since Peterson doesn't even provide a name of that Bernstein report, let alone a link like he did for another source he mentions, we don't have a reasonable way of checking his data.
The Auto Industry Can't Ignore The Electric Vehicle Revolution Any Longer
Cost parity by ‘early 2020s’ will be electric vehicle tipping point – MINING.COM
EVs to reach cost parity with internal combustion cars in 3-4 years: Bernstein | S&P Global Platts

The reports of the solid state battery demo gave Toyota's reason as because of the "EV surge" in the market. So this may be rushed, and the Primes battery installation was a result of rushing. Then these batteries are Li-ion, so if our ability to make such batteries is truly limited as some are spinning, then these will be affected.

Toyota has the know how for an electric car; they may even be working on a dedicated BEV platform. Some of the criticism over lagging in plug ins stems from the fact that Toyota is pushing hydrogen cars instead.

You need a larger fuel cell stack in order to increase output. The Mirai has the performance of a 4 cylinder Camry, and costs more than a Model 3, which is a far more capable performance car. The long range 3 can go 310 miles, and is $8500 less than the base Mirai. The Mirai's range is 312 miles. Hydrogen tanks may cost less, they still aren't cheap, and not face material constraints, but they have their own issues.

The major one is that they are bulky and heavy. Mirai has slightly more cabin space than the Model 3, but it only seats 4. Its trunk is much smaller, and there isn't even a pass through. Between the fuel cell, battery, and electric drive train, the trunk is the only place left for more hydrogen tanks. There is already one tank under the rear seat. Then hydrogen's fast fill times is based upon a 5kg tank. Depending on circumstances, it can take 15 minutes of longer to fill. Bigger tank means longer fill times. The hydrogen lobby makes it seem like filling hydrogen is just like the liquid fuels people are use to, but that simply isn't case.

A less pressing issue is that the USDOT puts an end of use date of fuel tanks of compressed gases. The tanks in the Mirai need to be taken out of service 15 years after date of the tank's manufacture. Comparable CNG tanks are good for 25 years. The battery is a plug in will likely lose some capacity over such a time span, but as long as it meets its owners needs, that battery can stay in the car. Even if taken out, the battery might see life in another use. Hydrogen tanks will likely end up in a land fill. While still in the car, the tanks require annual inspections.

Except for a tiny bit, hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. For hydrogen cars in the US, that fossil fuel is natural gas. When the hydrogen is stripped away, the carbon forms CO2. The CNG Camry hybrid and Mirai have roughly the same CO2 emissions per mile.

Now, reforming the natural gas for hydrogen does make sequestering, or making use of, the CO2 possible. That is going to increase the cost of the hydrogen fuel. So will using renewable hydrogen. California, with a 30% renewable mandate, had hydrogen prices in the $13 to $16 a kg range. Using the average $14.50, it costs the Mirai 22 cents a mile for fuel. With $5/gal gas, a Camry costs 15 cents a mile. The hybrid as low 9.6 cents. CNG runs cheaper than gasoline in California.

And we can make natural gas renewably. The process is basically the steam reformation one for hydrogen in reverse. We could even take the required CO2 right out of the air, if it was desired.

Toyota's annual hybrid production was no where near that when they first started making the Prius, and at that time, they had to make investments into nickel mines and battery factories in order to have the supplies they need today.

There is no shortage of the required raw materials for batteries on this planet. The near term shortage issue is because bottlenecks currently in mining and production. Investments, just like Toyota did in the past, have been made, and are continuing to be made, in order to overcome those issues.

My point in the other thread is that hybrids being a better investment for that doesn't matter if consumers continue to choose the ICE car.

The resin in the tank and other surrounding material that will ignite in the event of a hydrogen fire will not burn cleanly. Diesel burns cleaner than all the plastics in a modern car.

His purpose was to convince people of a dire shortage in battery supplies, so he could profit in the stock market.