The dirty secret of electric vehicles

[tikal]

I am posting this in the spirit of a frank discussion, not to 'attack' EVs which I am considering myself in the future for city driving:

The dirty secret of electric vehicles

Buying an electric car is about as ethical as you can get, isn’t it? Not according to Amnesty International, who have highlighted a big issue with some of the batteries that power them.

www.weforum.org

 

[turbobrick240]

The hazards associated with artisanal cobalt mining in the DRC are no secret. Those poor kids(and adults) have a tough life whether they're working in cobalt mines or not. It's a rough neighborhood. But the move away from battery chemistries that contain cobalt is a welcome advancement. Better LiFePO batteries combined with increasing vehicle efficiency not only eliminate the need for cobalt, but drive down costs considerably. Where higher energy density is required, the new Nickel/Manganese chemistry Tesla is developing doesn't contain cobalt.

CNN Wrongly Blames Electric Cars for Unethical Cobalt Mining

This week, CNN published a startling multimedia report on cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The investigation revealed troubling conditions in so-called “artisanal” cobalt mines, where hand mining operations are carried out with a combination of unsafe working conditions and...

www.desmogblog.com

 

[wxman]

There's quite a bit of information available on Li batteries available at https://www.ivl.se/download/18.14d7b12e16e3c5c36271070/1574923989017/C444.pdf

Note on page 29 (Figure 8) that future NMC LiBs will have much less cobalt but much more nickel, i.e., cobalt will be replaced mostly by nickel.

 

[tikal]

Thanks wxman for another informative article.

Also how much water is needed to produce lithium. Are we talking "fracking levels of water" magnitude?

 

[rocky raccoon]

Another aspect of EVs that I think about now and then depending on my Irish whiskey consumption is electrical grid capacity.

If magically all automobiles were running on battery power, would we have the electrical capacity in the grid to keep them charged? I would guess not given the rest of the electrical demand. Imagine California (in 2035 according to that wacky Governor) which is already plagued with periodic blackouts. Then, imagine suggesting to that same Governor that he needs two or three nuclear power plants to meet the state's needs.

Do we live in interesting times or what?

 

[turbobrick240]

The likelyhood of an overnight "magical" conversion of the fleet to 100% electric propulsion is nil. There's plenty of time to modernize and interconnect the grids as EV adoption grows.

 

[rocky raccoon]

I know that of course. I just don't believe we can produce enough electrical power for the future unless we proliferate nukes which I believe are just fine. I also think however that there is a large population that has been brought up to be fearful of them and will resist new plants. This the same population that believes sunlight and tidal generators are our future electrical source.

 

[bwilson4web]

Tesla recently held battery day:

• 0:00:00 - 36.55 - eye-candy
• 36:55 - 1:06:36 - stockholder meeting (boring)
• 1:06:36 - 3:18:08 - let's get technical

Rather than seeking 'bias confirmation,' view the source (at high speed) and then let's talk. From the video: use of encapsulated, silicon; replacing cobalt with nickel; increases in capacity, and; reducing costs, 2:11:19 and 2:14:2.

As for the Congo kids, let them can go back to eating cobalt.

Bob Wilson

 

[tikal]

As for the Congo kids, let them can go back to eating cobalt.

Bob Wilson

Meaning please?

 

[nwdiver]

I just don't believe we can produce enough electrical power for the future unless we proliferate nukes which I believe are just fine.

~10 Solar panels will produce enough energy annually to drive an EV ~12,000 miles OR a single 2MW wind turbine will produce enough energy annually for ~2500 EVs driving ~12,000 miles annually. That's what I love about math. No belief required.

 

[rocky raccoon]

I would replace your word "will" with the word "can". I don't think solar panels are working very well in southern California right now. Then tell me where you would place those panels and windmills. You also need to factor transmission and storage losses. Admittedly, I don't have the numbers for the math lovers but I do have common sense.

 

[turbobrick240]

I'd put the windmills as close as possible to the grain source. Wind turbines should go where the wind resource is favorable.

Why aren't solar panels working well in S. California? The heavy, sun blocking smoke from the western wildfires is a temporary situation. It's certainly nothing for advocates of nuclear proliferation to be gleeful about.

 

[rocky raccoon]

O.K. I think this thread is in danger of taking a left turn. I'm out.

 

[nwdiver]

O.K. I think this thread is in danger of taking a left turn. I'm out.

Toward Facts? EVs ARE storage. That's one of the many great things about EVs. Instead of storing surplus wind and solar in grid storage you can use it to charge EVs. Which erases 'storage loses' as minor as they are (~10%).

And the verb you're looking for is neither 'can' nor 'will' but really 'are' or 'does'. Present tense not future tense. The key word is 'annually'. Yeah... there are going to be a few days a year that solar and wind production is significantly reduced. Most people won't need to charge their car everyday no more than most people don't need to fill up their tank everyday. If there's a fire weather warning open the app on your phone and make sure your car is charged BEFORE the sky fills with smoke.

 

[bwilson4web]

Meaning please?

As for the Congo kids, let them can go back to eating cobalt.

The Congo kids mine cobalt to buy food.

Bob Wilson

 

[tikal]

Bob Wilson, the way you phrased it sounded so estrange. Almost to the point of sounding crude towards those children. Maybe is just me, no problem. Thanks for your clarification.

Following up on the topic of Cobalt use in Li-Ion batteries, is there a way to find out if the new VW ID4 battery has less Cobalt than the current e-Golf (2015-19) for example?

 

[turbobrick240]

It sounds as though the ID4 may have about a third less cobalt in it's NMC battery chemistry. Though, the ID4 will have a significantly larger battery than the e Golf, so in total each vehicle probably contains more cobalt. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ckel-batteries-for-electric-car-idUSKBN2142HW

 

[bwilson4web]

It sounds as though the ID4 may have about a third less cobalt in it's NMC battery chemistry. Though, the ID4 will have a significantly larger battery than the e Golf, so in total each vehicle probably contains more cobalt. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ckel-batteries-for-electric-car-idUSKBN2142HW

Let me know where the landfills are full of batteries. I have a shovel.

You do realize that gasoline is made using cobalt to remove sulfur.

Bob Wilson

 

[gulfcoastguy]

Most companies are trying to reduce cobalt use and to find new, more ethical, and more stable sources. One could argue that oil income has been used to finance violence over the past 40 years. This world is imperfect.

 

[joyjoy22]

Interesting, but I don't own an electric vehicle.

 

[scooperhsd]

All you're doing with electric vehicles is changing where the pollution is created - instead of at the car itself, it is shifted to the bad old fossil fueled powerplant (maybe out of state).

Wake me up if they ever get nuclear available for the passenger car....

 

[VeeDubTDI]

All you're doing with electric vehicles is changing where the pollution is created - instead of at the car itself, it is shifted to the bad old fossil fueled powerplant (maybe out of state).

Wake me up if they ever get nuclear available for the passenger car....

Not all power plants are fossil fueled. Emissions from power generation vary by region. In addition, the grid gets cleaner every year. But you probably knew all of this already.

 

[rocky raccoon]

It seems this many years since we have gotten a handle on nuclear power, it is still not being used to it's optimum. By now, I should have a nuc pile the size of a basketball buried under my house providing all the heat and electrical power I need. For that matter, I could have a softball-sized nuc plant powered steam engine driving my car. It is doable.

Commercially-available small nuc plants for powering small communities are out there and available as of last month {September 2020} and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is not even hazardous. It is only hysteria keeping us from making great strides. By now, the U.S. Navy has had hundreds of thousands of sailors living within feet of sometimes primitive nuclear reactors 24/7. Getting rid of waste can be as simple as periodically loading it into a big dumb rocket and firing it into the sun.

Free the Scientists!

 

[bwilson4web]

There is a great fusion reactor available for about half of each day ... in the sky.

Bob Wilson

 

[rocky raccoon]

Bob:
That fusion reactor is not reliable any time, any day, anywhere and requires huge amounts of energy storage. It also requires an unreasonable amount of collection area that could be put to better use.

Solar power is useful but not to reliably supply the grid for future demand.

 

[nwdiver]

Solar power is useful but not to reliably supply the grid for future demand.

Solar and wind are good enough to provide ~90% of our energy especially once EVs are added to the mix. EVs are storage on wheels. The final ~10% can be something as simple as H2 that's produced by surplus wind and solar. The problem with nuclear isn't 'hysteria' it's economics. Even if the heat source is free converting that heat into electricity is ~3x more expensive than converting photons or wind into electricity. Nuclear isn't free. It's now ~6x more expensive per kWh vs wind or solar and that gap is widening.

I've been off-grid for ~2 months now. The biggest problem I have is wasting energy. Having an EV to send energy into once the house batteries are charged is useful. Nothing cleaner than charging an EV with energy from solar that would have been wasted if I didn't have an EV to charge...

 

[Rob Mayercik]

The problem with nuclear isn't 'hysteria' it's economics. Even if the heat source is free converting that heat into electricity is ~3x more expensive than converting photons or wind into electricity. Nuclear isn't free. It's now ~6x more expensive per kWh vs wind or solar and that gap is widening.

Oh, there's still plenty of hysteria to go around (I rather wish we could convert hysteria into energy. Can politicians be fitted for wind turbines? Many seem to be significant sources of "wind" )

Anyway, Is there no other way to generate electricity from nuclear than via heat? Does the reaction generate light that could be captured via solar panels?

 

[kjclow]

I had a new solar quote the other day. It would convert my $100 monthly bill to Duke Energy to $85 towards the solar loan and $15 to Duke. It showed a 20 year payoff period assuming that I took advantage of the rebates and tax credits. Total cost of installation is around $35k. Sorry, but my electric bill would have to climb a lot to make it worth putting panels on my house.

 

[nwdiver]

Anyway, Is there no other way to generate electricity from nuclear than via heat?

.... not that anyone has discovered or that is cheaper than using heat. 100% of nuclear power that is used to produce electricity uses heat as a middle man. It's unlikely any other method is even physically possible with fission. ~85% of the energy released is in the KE of the fission products (aka heat). Another ~7% is carried away by neutrons and neutrinos. So if you wanted a non-thermal way of getting electricity from fission you've got <10% left to collect.... makes the ~30% you get from thermal look like a 'good' deal...

Solar thermal is economically obsolete. So is thermal nuclear.

I had a new solar quote the other day. It would convert my $100 monthly bill to Duke Energy to $85 towards the solar loan and $15 to Duke.

So... in other words... you could shift to 100% clean energy and it would cost you nothing;;; You just pay $85 + $15 instead of $100... pretty sure that's a difference of ~$0.

Well... if 'nothing' is too expensive for ya give it another year and you can probably shift to 100% clean energy for ~-$10/mo as the cost declines of solar PV continue.

 

[rocky raccoon]

Rob, the only way to use energy is to convert it to another form of energy. The change itself is what allows it. Even a nuclear powered ship is essentially a steam turbine engine that uses an atomic pile rather than an oil plant to boil the water. The big difference is in the fuel efficiency.

Electric motors are very efficient, producing little waste heat but one still has to produce the electricity either by wire transmission or battery charging. Somewhere energy must be converted to another form of energy, perhaps several times. This results in losses at every conversion step. Nuclear plants are by far the best way in terms of energy density and reliability.