OT:New Difficulty With EVs – Finnish Govt. Reports That The World Does Not Have Enough Lithium And Cobalt To Replace Batteries Every 10 Years

Status
Not open for further replies.

BROTHERSKINNY

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2010
14,271
13,324
113
In addition to electric vehicles (EVs) becoming a huge fire hazard, and a drain on electric grid systems, the Finnish government is also pointing out that there may not be enough lithium and cobalt in the world to provide for changing the batteries out every ten years. So how sustainable are electric vehicles, really?

Daily Sceptic is reporting that, “Influential elites are either in denial about the horrifying costs and consequences of Net Zero – witness last Wednesday’s substantial vote against fracking British gas in the House of Commons – or busy scooping up the almost unlimited amounts of money currently on offer for promoting pseudoscience climate scares and investing in impracticable green technologies. Until the lights start to go out and heating fails, they are unlikely to pay much attention to a recent 1,000 page alternative energy investigation undertaken for a Finnish Government agency by Associate Professor Simon Michaux. Referring to the U.K.’s 2050 Net Zero target, Michaux states there is ‘simply not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target’. To cite just one example of how un-costed Net Zero is, Michaux notes that ‘in theory’ there are enough global reserves of nickel and lithium if they are exclusively used to produce batteries for electric vehicles. But there is not enough cobalt, and more will need to be discovered. It gets much worse. All the new batteries have a useful working life of only 8-10 years, so replacements will need to be regularly produced. ‘This is unlikely to be practical, which suggests the whole EV battery solution may need to be re-thought and a new solution is developed that is not so mineral intensive,’ he says. All of these problems occur in finding a mass of lithium for ion batteries weighting 286.6 million tons. But a ‘power buffer’ of another 2.5 billion tons of batteries is also required to provide a four-week back-up for intermittent wind and solar electricity power. Of course, this is simply not available from global mineral reserves, but, states Michaux, it is not clear how the buffer could be delivered with an alternative system.”

Daily Sceptic goes on to report that, “Michaux sounds a clear warning message. Current expectations are that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial energy ecosystem that took more than a century to build. It was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. The replacement, he notes, needs to be done when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt and not enough minerals. Most challenging of all, it has to be done within a few decades. Based on his copious calculations, the author is of the opinion that it will not go fully ‘as planned’. Last Sunday, Sir David Attenborough concluded six episodes of pseudoscientific green agitprop Frozen Planet II by demanding that the world embrace Net Zero, ‘no matter how challenging it may be’. Net Zero is a political command-and-control project, the full horror of which is yet to be inflicted on the general population. Michaux is quite clear what it entails: ‘What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.’ Of course, a radically different system of government is available in the People’s Republic of China, but here the position on Net Zero is a tad more nuanced. Having lifted about a billion people out of starving poverty in the last 40 years and become the workshop for an increasingly complacent western world – all powered by fossil fuel – the cause does not seem so pressing. Speaking to the Communist Party Congress earlier this week, President Xi Jinping sounded a note of caution and said ‘prudence’ would govern China’s efforts to peak and eventually zero-out carbon emissions. All of this would be in line with the principle of ‘getting the new before discarding the old’. Meanwhile, China’s coal production is reported to have reached record levels, while the Congress was told that oil and gas exploration will be expanded as part of measures to ensure ‘energy security’. Michaux points out that nearly 85% of world energy comes from fossil fuel. By his calculations, the annual global capacity of non-fossil electrical power will need to quadruple to 37,670.6 TWh. In a recent report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Professor Michael Kelly estimates that the U.K. electricity grid would have to expand by 2.7 times. This will involve adding capacity at eight times the rate it has been added over the last 30 years. If calculations are made for the need to rewire homes, streets, local substations and powerlines to carry the new capacity, the extra cost will be nearly £1 trillion. In another recent GWPF paper, the energy writer John Constable warned that the European Green Deal seems all but certain to break Europe’s economic and socio-political power, ‘rendering it a trivial and incapable backwater, reliant on – and subservient to – superior powers’. History provides us with many examples of weak, or weakened, tribes being overrun by stronger tribes. In the animal kingdom it is known as natural evolution. A 96-year old ‘national treasure’ preaches we have to pay any price to satisfy the new cult of the green god. Better costed and more rational views are available.”
 

BROTHERSKINNY

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2010
14,271
13,324
113
Yup it will be removed. Mod bans me from posting in the EV thread without reason and then they continuously remove my OT posts. censorship is alive and well. Cancel Culture is real.
 

letitrip2

Senior
Sep 4, 2007
1,852
2,977
113
Another in a long line if silly posts from an obsessed BEV bear. Have you ever heard of Recycling - Used BEV batteries are basically high quality ore. The current problem is there are just not enough used batteries. That will change quickly and companies like Redwood Materials will be there to make money - The free market is amazing.
 

BROTHERSKINNY

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2010
14,271
13,324
113
Let the free market work.
if the free market was working the EV consortium would not need massive government subsidies to compete. Here is a partial list of Green Energy Failures.


This article at the Green Corruption blog is the best I’ve seen in chronicling the Obama administration’s failures in subsidizing so called green energy products, primarily with money from the economy-destroying stimulus package of 2009. It goes on to demonstrate the "crony" nature of these programs and how Obama has dolled out other people’s money with the purpose of rewarding his friends.

The article is basically a summary of extensive research done by the author Christine Lakatos and energy policy expert Marita Noon. As Lakatos notes:

23 bankrupt, 27 troubled, equals a new "Obama green-energy failure" list total of 50. At least $15 billion of "green" taxpayer money is either gone or still at risk, and the majority was funneled to Obama and Democrat cronies — percentage of cronyism is hoovering around 60% (29 of the 50), until I have time to dig further.
This article is an encyclopedic reference for those who want to keep track of the details of how the president has been abusing his power and using the environmental movement to run interference for his own personal benefit and for the benefit of political donors.

Here is a list of just those companies that have failed. As noted, the article goes way beyond this, listing those recipients of green stimulus money that are also in trouble and may soon fail.

  1. Solyndra*: Received $535 million DOE loan and $25.1 million in California tax credit. Bankrupt: September 2011
  2. Abound Solar*: Received part of a $60 million grant under the Bush administration, and was awarded a $400 million loan under Obama in December of 2010. Abound was awarded a $9.2-million loan from the Export-Import Bank in July 2011. Bankrupt: June 2012
  3. Beacon Power*: Received more than $25 million in DOE grants and a DOE loan for $43 million. Bankrupt: October 2011
  4. A123 Systems*: Received $390 million, of which $249 million of it was a Recovery Act Grant. Filed for Bankruptcy October 16, 2012, and two companies are seeking to buy A123; Johnson Controls and the Chinese firm Wanxiang Group Corp.
  5. AES Eastern Energy/Energy Storage*: Received $17.1 million DOE conditional commitment on August 2, 2010. Bankrupt: December 31, 2011.
  6. Amonix*: Received $6 million in federal tax credits a $15.6 million grant from the DOE for research and development. Bankrupt: July 18, 2012.
  7. Azure Dynamics*: Received millions in stimulus funds and over $1.7 million in Michigan state tax credits. Bankrupt: March 27, 2012
  8. Babcock & Brown: Received $178 million in the largest federal (1603) stimulus wind grant in December 2009. Placed into voluntary liquidation: March 13, 2009
  9. Energy Conversion Devices Inc./Uni-Solar: Received a $13.3 million Stimulus tax credit. Bankrupt: February 2011.
  10. Ener1*: Received a $118.5 million DOE Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: January 26, 2011.
  11. Evergreen Solar, Inc.*: Received Stimulus funds, grants, tax-credits, low-interest loans and subsidies. Bankrupt: August 15, 2011
  12. Konarka Technologies Inc.: Received $20 million in grants from government agencies such as the DOE and the Pentagon. Bankrupt: June 4, 2012.
  13. ADDITION Range Fuels*: Range Fuels: $162.25 million in government commitments since 2007, of which $64 million came from a USDA Biofuel loan in 2010 alone, despite financial and technical difficulties, and opposition inside the USDA.
  14. Raser Technologies: Received $33 million Treasury Department Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: May 2, 2011.
  15. SpectraWatt*: Received $500,000 grant from the Renewable Energy Lab via the Stimulus. Bankrupt: August 23, 2011
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac

Knight Shift

Legend
May 19, 2011
67,484
61,346
113
Jersey Shore
No shit. And he's another issue. There is far too little electrical power available to charge all the planned new vehicles. And there will never be enough solar and wind to do it either.
Dude. Most people charge at home. We are installing solar. It will meet our current energy needs plus charge our F150 Lightning. Is there not enough sunshine?
 

rutgersquikcat

Redshirt
Gold Member
Aug 31, 2012
36
101
33
I continue to believe there is no immediate solution to over production of greenhouse gases without a significant investment in nuclear energy for the grid. I am hopeful new technology will be developed, such as solid state batteries that will have a much longer lifespan, but they are not here yet.
 

BROTHERSKINNY

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2010
14,271
13,324
113
Dude. Most people charge at home. We are installing solar. It will meet our current energy needs plus charge our F150 Lightning. Is there not enough sunshine?
Knight shift, do you realize that the infrastructure is not there to pipe through all the electricity to charge all these vehicles? We will need to rebuild our entire energy grid. That takes time, money, manpower and lots of fossil fuels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac

letitrip2

Senior
Sep 4, 2007
1,852
2,977
113
if the free market was working the EV consortium would not need massive government subsidies to compete. Here is a partial list of Green Energy Failures.


This article at the Green Corruption blog is the best I’ve seen in chronicling the Obama administration’s failures in subsidizing so called green energy products, primarily with money from the economy-destroying stimulus package of 2009. It goes on to demonstrate the "crony" nature of these programs and how Obama has dolled out other people’s money with the purpose of rewarding his friends.

The article is basically a summary of extensive research done by the author Christine Lakatos and energy policy expert Marita Noon. As Lakatos notes:


This article is an encyclopedic reference for those who want to keep track of the details of how the president has been abusing his power and using the environmental movement to run interference for his own personal benefit and for the benefit of political donors.

Here is a list of just those companies that have failed. As noted, the article goes way beyond this, listing those recipients of green stimulus money that are also in trouble and may soon fail.

  1. Solyndra*: Received $535 million DOE loan and $25.1 million in California tax credit. Bankrupt: September 2011
  2. Abound Solar*: Received part of a $60 million grant under the Bush administration, and was awarded a $400 million loan under Obama in December of 2010. Abound was awarded a $9.2-million loan from the Export-Import Bank in July 2011. Bankrupt: June 2012
  3. Beacon Power*: Received more than $25 million in DOE grants and a DOE loan for $43 million. Bankrupt: October 2011
  4. A123 Systems*: Received $390 million, of which $249 million of it was a Recovery Act Grant. Filed for Bankruptcy October 16, 2012, and two companies are seeking to buy A123; Johnson Controls and the Chinese firm Wanxiang Group Corp.
  5. AES Eastern Energy/Energy Storage*: Received $17.1 million DOE conditional commitment on August 2, 2010. Bankrupt: December 31, 2011.
  6. Amonix*: Received $6 million in federal tax credits a $15.6 million grant from the DOE for research and development. Bankrupt: July 18, 2012.
  7. Azure Dynamics*: Received millions in stimulus funds and over $1.7 million in Michigan state tax credits. Bankrupt: March 27, 2012
  8. Babcock & Brown: Received $178 million in the largest federal (1603) stimulus wind grant in December 2009. Placed into voluntary liquidation: March 13, 2009
  9. Energy Conversion Devices Inc./Uni-Solar: Received a $13.3 million Stimulus tax credit. Bankrupt: February 2011.
  10. Ener1*: Received a $118.5 million DOE Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: January 26, 2011.
  11. Evergreen Solar, Inc.*: Received Stimulus funds, grants, tax-credits, low-interest loans and subsidies. Bankrupt: August 15, 2011
  12. Konarka Technologies Inc.: Received $20 million in grants from government agencies such as the DOE and the Pentagon. Bankrupt: June 4, 2012.
  13. ADDITION Range Fuels*: Range Fuels: $162.25 million in government commitments since 2007, of which $64 million came from a USDA Biofuel loan in 2010 alone, despite financial and technical difficulties, and opposition inside the USDA.
  14. Raser Technologies: Received $33 million Treasury Department Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: May 2, 2011.
  15. SpectraWatt*: Received $500,000 grant from the Renewable Energy Lab via the Stimulus. Bankrupt: August 23, 2011
I agree with you - Hate subsidizes of any kind and the EV market does not need them. Only the US would implement a subsidy for a product that is supply constrained.
 

krup

Heisman Winner
Feb 5, 2003
11,715
5,692
113
It’s going to be an interesting change to the economy if EVs take over.

The depreciation in these vehicles is going to be greatly accelerated with each mile getting the owner closer to the need for an expensive new battery, and how many people are going to be able to buy new vehicles when they possess little trade in equity to offset some of the price?
 

Rutgers Chris

Senior
Nov 29, 2005
1,626
1,778
113
It’s going to be an interesting change to the economy if EVs take over.

The depreciation in these vehicles is going to be greatly accelerated with each mile getting the owner closer to the need for an expensive new battery, and how many people are going to be able to buy new vehicles when they possess little trade in equity to offset some of the price?
Teslas depreciate at a slower rate than ice vehicles. Hopefully other ev makers follow suit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift

RUBlackout7

Junior
Apr 10, 2021
856
1,142
93
Yup it will be removed. Mod bans me from posting in the EV thread without reason and then they continuously remove my OT posts. censorship is alive and well. Cancel Culture is real.
Cause you troll and ruin threads. And you post weird CE type threads like this. This is a football message board, like, get a life.
 

RUScrew85

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2003
27,014
13,717
113
Dude. Most people charge at home. We are installing solar. It will meet our current energy needs plus charge our F150 Lightning. Is there not enough sunshine?

OK. Everyone puts solar panels on their house with the purchase of a a eVehicle.

Quick question, is everyone aware of and willing to follow your plan? Because if they are relying on the grid your argument sorta doesn't apply.
 

mildone

Hall of Famer
Dec 19, 2011
48,506
45,010
113
Teslas depreciate at a slower rate than ice vehicles. Hopefully other ev makers follow suit
Didn’t read the article, but I am skeptical that a model 3 will hold its value the way certain high end sports cars, regardless of propulsion tech used, hold their value. Some of those sports cars appreciate by 6 or 7 figures, some instantly.
 

mildone

Hall of Famer
Dec 19, 2011
48,506
45,010
113
In addition to electric vehicles (EVs) becoming a huge fire hazard, and a drain on electric grid systems, the Finnish government is also pointing out that there may not be enough lithium and cobalt in the world to provide for changing the batteries out every ten years. So how sustainable are electric vehicles, really?

Daily Sceptic is reporting that, “Influential elites are either in denial about the horrifying costs and consequences of Net Zero – witness last Wednesday’s substantial vote against fracking British gas in the House of Commons – or busy scooping up the almost unlimited amounts of money currently on offer for promoting pseudoscience climate scares and investing in impracticable green technologies. Until the lights start to go out and heating fails, they are unlikely to pay much attention to a recent 1,000 page alternative energy investigation undertaken for a Finnish Government agency by Associate Professor Simon Michaux. Referring to the U.K.’s 2050 Net Zero target, Michaux states there is ‘simply not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target’. To cite just one example of how un-costed Net Zero is, Michaux notes that ‘in theory’ there are enough global reserves of nickel and lithium if they are exclusively used to produce batteries for electric vehicles. But there is not enough cobalt, and more will need to be discovered. It gets much worse. All the new batteries have a useful working life of only 8-10 years, so replacements will need to be regularly produced. ‘This is unlikely to be practical, which suggests the whole EV battery solution may need to be re-thought and a new solution is developed that is not so mineral intensive,’ he says. All of these problems occur in finding a mass of lithium for ion batteries weighting 286.6 million tons. But a ‘power buffer’ of another 2.5 billion tons of batteries is also required to provide a four-week back-up for intermittent wind and solar electricity power. Of course, this is simply not available from global mineral reserves, but, states Michaux, it is not clear how the buffer could be delivered with an alternative system.”

Daily Sceptic goes on to report that, “Michaux sounds a clear warning message. Current expectations are that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial energy ecosystem that took more than a century to build. It was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. The replacement, he notes, needs to be done when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt and not enough minerals. Most challenging of all, it has to be done within a few decades. Based on his copious calculations, the author is of the opinion that it will not go fully ‘as planned’. Last Sunday, Sir David Attenborough concluded six episodes of pseudoscientific green agitprop Frozen Planet II by demanding that the world embrace Net Zero, ‘no matter how challenging it may be’. Net Zero is a political command-and-control project, the full horror of which is yet to be inflicted on the general population. Michaux is quite clear what it entails: ‘What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.’ Of course, a radically different system of government is available in the People’s Republic of China, but here the position on Net Zero is a tad more nuanced. Having lifted about a billion people out of starving poverty in the last 40 years and become the workshop for an increasingly complacent western world – all powered by fossil fuel – the cause does not seem so pressing. Speaking to the Communist Party Congress earlier this week, President Xi Jinping sounded a note of caution and said ‘prudence’ would govern China’s efforts to peak and eventually zero-out carbon emissions. All of this would be in line with the principle of ‘getting the new before discarding the old’. Meanwhile, China’s coal production is reported to have reached record levels, while the Congress was told that oil and gas exploration will be expanded as part of measures to ensure ‘energy security’. Michaux points out that nearly 85% of world energy comes from fossil fuel. By his calculations, the annual global capacity of non-fossil electrical power will need to quadruple to 37,670.6 TWh. In a recent report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Professor Michael Kelly estimates that the U.K. electricity grid would have to expand by 2.7 times. This will involve adding capacity at eight times the rate it has been added over the last 30 years. If calculations are made for the need to rewire homes, streets, local substations and powerlines to carry the new capacity, the extra cost will be nearly £1 trillion. In another recent GWPF paper, the energy writer John Constable warned that the European Green Deal seems all but certain to break Europe’s economic and socio-political power, ‘rendering it a trivial and incapable backwater, reliant on – and subservient to – superior powers’. History provides us with many examples of weak, or weakened, tribes being overrun by stronger tribes. In the animal kingdom it is known as natural evolution. A 96-year old ‘national treasure’ preaches we have to pay any price to satisfy the new cult of the green god. Better costed and more rational views are available.”
Holy plagiarism, Batman.

I can’t imagine the site owner wants to deal with accusations of content theft. Might want to replace the cut and paste text with a link to wherever you copied that from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLewis1968
Status
Not open for further replies.