Skip Navigation
724 comments

  • The reason I'm pretty much undecided about EVs is the rare metals in the batteries. The pollution by gathering and the inhumane treatment of the workers who extract these resources. I'm still hoping for better alternatives in the energy storage medium

    • Fwiw mining and manufacturing isn't as bad as some people want you to believe.

      About 40% of lithium comes from brine extraction. There's a lot of lithium in the ground which are dissolved in brine - a super salty solution of minerals and water. They're extracted by allowing the water to evaporate into the atmosphere and then retrieving the minerals from that.

      While that "wastes" a lot of water, none of that water was usable in the first place. It's too salty for humans and would kill any plants or fish if used for crops or dumped respectively.

      Another 60% comes from normal hard rock mining. This is as environmentally friendly as most mining is.

      A small portion - about 2% - comes from clay mining. This is actually rather bad for the environment and results in a lot of atmospheric pollution. Fortunately, it's a small shrinking portion of total mining.

      The other main minerals in li-ions are cobalt, manganese, and lithium.

      A large amount of cobalt comes from artisanal mining in the Congo. Artisanal is just a fancy term that means it's not work being performed by a company at a dedicated mine, but on a small scale such as a single person digging an area and collecting it or a handful of people who run their own mine. Unfortunately, though, we know that slave and child labor are used at a large portion of these mines.

      Fortunately, there has been a large push to move to more sustainable mining practices. Some Congo miners have allowed outside observers to verify that all miners are adults working of their own volition.

      Other countries such as Cuba and Indonesia have begun mining cobalt and are also following minimum employment practices. As a side benefit, these mines are also the main sources for nickel which reduces the number of mines we need.

      Manganese is rather interesting. The current extraction process involves using natural gas to separate the components. However, there are nodules on the ocean floor which are rich in manganese. While these would produce less pollution to process, there are worries that removing the nodules would cause irreparable harm to the local environment.

      However, even if your batteries were mined in the most harmful method possible and your power comes from the dirtiest plant of all time, the long term emissions are still much better than driving the most fuel-efficient ICE over the same time period.

    • I think of the mining issues somewhat like nuclear power. That mining is also very problematic and destructive to the environment. However in both cases, it’s a relatively small amount. Even if the local environmental or social cost is higher, it is such a small amount of material that the overall cost is still lower.

      Also, consider supply and demand. Every article talking about how bad. The mining is, mentions how there’s reasons more developed countries don’t do it. Recent years have seen several announcements of newly discovered resource in the US, for example. Will they be mined, despite higher worker safety and environmental protection? One way to encourage this is higher demand, raising the price enough to drive their profitability

  • Someone has to build quite a few more power stations though. Assuming you're talking about swapping a large fraction of the car fleet to EV, not just a few here and there. That's a substantial increase in total electricity demand. Enough to radically impact the load on the grid.

    And if you end up burning natual gas / coal to meet the marginal increase in demand - as would seem fairly likely - then much of the thermal conversion losses you're saving in the higehr efficieny motor just get shifted to the furnace in the power station and transmission/distribution system; so that can erode some of the efficiency benefits.

    I guess you could require for every new EV that they also install roftop solar PV and basically buy a spare battery of near same capacity as the car. that might push the up front and periodic replacement cost a bit though - quite nice for the running costs i guess.

    Another good alternative is to try to convince people to get together and share their electric motors in things callled trains and do as many trips in those as possible - that's not too popular with most people unless the road congestion is really bad. Something to do with sharing being communism i think,

    • And if you end up burning natual gas / coal to meet the marginal increase in demand - as would seem fairly likely - then much of the thermal conversion losses you're saving in the higehr efficieny motor just get shifted to the furnace in the power station and transmission/distribution system; so that can erode some of the efficiency benefits.

      1. liquid fuels still have to get from the ground -> refinery -> distribution -> gas station -> vehicle so there is transmission cost and loss there
      2. "we can't immediately solve all of the problems so let's not do it" is a pretty bad take. Incremental progress is better than waiting for perfect which basically means never doing it.

      Another good alternative is to try to convince people to get together and share their electric motors in things callled trains and do as many trips in those as possible - that's not too popular with most people unless the road congestion is really bad. Something to do with sharing being communism i think,

      I 100% agree everywhere it's practical. Still, people are going to have to get to train stations somehow. Multi-modal transit could somewhat cover that, but some people would still practically have to drive. Convincing those people to only drive to the nearest station and not all the way to their destination is another challenge to solve.

724 comments