Raw materials and the transition to EVs

This is intended as a general topic for articles discussing resource issues as they pertain to the speed of an EV transition.

For example, GCC:

Adamas: EV sales to hit 12.5M in 2025; 350% increase in demand for rare earths used in traction motors

Click to expand...

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/11/20191111-adamas.html

A new report from Adamas Intelligence, “Electric Growth: EVs, Motors and Motor Materials”, forecasts that global annual EV sales (excluding mild and micro hybrids) will increase from 4.3 million units last year to 12.5 million in 2025 and 32.0 million in 2030.

With upwards of 80% of all EVs projected to use permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) in the years ahead, the rapid rise in EV sales will fuel a 350% increase in demand for rare earths used in EV traction motors between 2018 and 2025, and a further 127% increase in demand between 2025 and 2030, according to the forecast.

In general, Adamas notes, the amount of NdFeB used in a PMSM is a factor of the motor’s peak power (in kilowatts). Since 2010, the sales-weighted-average EV motor’s power has increased steadily, fueling a rise in NdFeB consumption per EV that Adamas expects will continue.

Adamas Intelligence estimates that, on average, a PMSM for an EV contains approximately 1.2 kg of NdFeB magnets per 100 kW of peak motor power yielded. During production of this 1.2 kg of NdFeB magnets, Adamas estimates that an additional 0.4 kg of NdFeB alloy is diverted to waste streams during casting, crushing, milling, sintering, cutting, grinding, coating and inspection of the final magnets, and as such, a total of 1.6 kg of NdFeB alloy is consumed per 100 kW of peak motor power.

To produce 1.6 kg of NdFeB alloy requires approximately 0.5 kg of rare earth metal inputs (primarily NdPr with lesser Dy and minor Tb), plus an additional 15 to 20% to compensate for losses incurred during production of NdPr metal and Ferro-Dy alloy input materials, bringing total consumption to approximately 0.6 kg of rare earth metals per 100 kW of peak motor power.

To produce 0.6 kg of rare earth metal inputs requires an initial 0.7 kg of rare earth oxides—i.e., in total, every 100 kW of PMSM power produced globally creates demand for approximately 0.7 kg of rare earth oxides. . . .

Click to expand...

Rare earth mining has its own dark side.

Batteries will be the choke point for replacing gas cars.
.
1.3 billion light cars and trucks on the World's roads today. And 4 billion more working people that never had a car yet but now want one. The defacto desired battery size for an EV is settling in at 60 kWh. Replacing all liquid fueled light vehicles with 60 kWh battery EV's will require 78 TeraWatt hours of batteries. Just for cars! Not to mention agriculture and heavy mining equipment, heavy transport, and stationary storage.
.
We are going to come up way short as we very shortly start to run up against biophysical resource limits to growth on a finite planet.
.
The scale of current human civilization is generally unknown to most people including most World leaders and is obscured from our awareness by the huge bolus of the current and one time fossil carbon energy pulse.
.
When we hear reports of World Li battery production stated in GWh/ year it sounds like a lot. But when you convert 20 GWh to TWh this is only .020/ year. This new battery report from 2018 confirms my suspicions that the .4 TWh/ year world total that I have seen quoted elsewhere is way high given for example that GigaFactory 1 is still only at .02 TWh/ year. The report is showing data for 2015 delivered quantities in all sectors for Lithium cells of various chemistries as .060 TWh for the year. And projects the total to be just .22 TWh/ year at 2025. Which sound like a lot when you say we are going to further double the production volume twice in 10 years. But this is a far cry from satisfying the demand for 78 TWh total that we need just to replace all cars and light trucks. Not to mention stationary storage, farming, mining, and heavy transport. Not to mention starting all over again with recycled minerals when the first batteries begin to fail before we have even finished building out the required run.
.
https://www.rechargebatteries.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RECHARGE-The-Batteries-Report-2018-April-18.pdf
.
.

.
.

.
.
20 years of cheap oil left near the top. Then what?
.
.

That's why I think grid batteries are a waste of resources.
Better off making batteries, putting them in cars and just over building wind solar and nuclear electricity generation.

If we really think we will have 80 TWh of car batteries we need to mandate that they are all capable of Vehicle2Grid. Which right now, only chademo supports at all. And it is a fading format.

Oilpan4 said:

That's why I think grid batteries are a waste of resources.
Better off making batteries, putting them in cars and just over building wind solar and nuclear electricity generation.

Click to expand...

Lithium-ion grid batteries are a waste of resources, except possibly for temporary re-use of degraded car batteries for a while before they get recycled. Stationary batteries have more options for battery chemistry though. Power to weight and power to volume ratios are much less important, and temperature can be more easily controlled. Some chemistries like sodium-sulfur use little or no rare and expensive elements and are thus much more scalable.

Oh yeah reuse is a good second life.
For now it seems like makers are buying them up and using them up for vehicles, home power walls, off grid ect.
But eventually the old battery supply will exceed what can be sold on ebay.

Grid storage liquid metal battery.
.
https://youtu.be/NiRrvxjrJ1U
.

deep seafloor mining.
.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rare-earth-elements-u-s-on-sidelines-in-race-for-metals-sitting-on-ocean-floor-60-minutes-60-minutes-2019-11-17/
.
"The International Seabed Authority estimates that the total amount of nodules in the Clarion Clipperton Zone exceeds 21 billions of tons (Bt), containing about 5.95 Bt of manganese, 0.27 Bt of nickel, 0.23 Bt of copper and 0.05 Bt of cobalt.[2]" "Nodule growth is one of the slowest of all known geological phenomena, on the order of a centimeter over several million years.[10] Several processes are hypothesized to be involved in the formation of nodules, including the precipitation of metals from seawater (hydrogenous), the remobilization of manganese in the water column (diagenetic), the derivation of metals from hot springs associated with volcanic activity (hydrothermal), the decomposition of basaltic debris by seawater (halmyrolitic) and the precipitation of metal hydroxides through the activity of microorganisms (biogenic[11]). Several of these processes may operate concurrently or they may follow one another during the formation of a nodule."
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule
.

Might as well grab it for our use. 1% of the sea floor with it's wild life will have to suffer to our collateral damage. This is probably less ruinous than raking up (clear cutting) the shallow water floor for shrimp.
.
https://youtu.be/BcJFSl_YJHk

Re battery materials and production limits, this is one of the reasons (along with price) I favor limited-range PHEVs generally and RExs specifically in the near- and mid-term, such as the one described in this IEVS article (although the AER's excessive for most people) - even though it wouldn't help me given my use profile, it would work for the average person who has a daily commute but still wants to drive further when needed:

The $28,000 Tesla With A 400-Mile Range?

Click to expand...

https://insideevs.com/news/355552/28000-tesla-400-mile-range/

. . . The Affordable EV?

The question gets bantered about from time to time asking when will there be an EV that is much more affordable. The $35,000 Tesla Model 3, along with the Hyundai Kona Electric and the Kia Niro EV are a step in the right direction. But, $35,000 is still beyond the budget of many people. Last year, the average SRP of the 10 top-selling non-truck vehicles was about $24,000. We have to wonder, when will we see a truly affordable EV below $30,000? A $28,000 sticker price would be more competitive with these non-luxury ICE vehicles. Such a vehicle would make owning an EV much more accessible to many tens of millions more people. A well-designed vehicle around this price point would drive EV adoption to much higher levels.

It is clear, however, that simply offering affordability at the sacrifice of range is not a winning long-term strategy. We see from marketing data that a competitive range is an important feature which EVs need in order to advance adoption. Consumers expect new technology to be better than current technology, not worse. This applies to vehicles in every regard, including range. We should expect our cars of the future to have great technology and equal or greater range than that of current ICE vehicles. Anything less should not be considered acceptable.

If we look at the top 20 selling cars and trucks for 2018, all of them have a rated "range" of at least 350 miles. To think consumers will accept less is asking too much. Cars or SUVs with 400+ miles of total possible range is what we should expect from our next generation vehicles. The EV manufacturer that is able to achieve this first and implements it will be a marketplace winner.

Some people such as Fred Lambert of Electrek argue that you don't need a 400+ mile range EV. I made some strong points in favor of longer range EVs in my previous article "Let The Tesla Bulls Rage On And Chuckle At The Bears." I would like to add two points.

First: the argument is made that what is needed is simply more charging infrastructure and faster charge times. If this is really true, then the question has to be asked, where are all the 200-mile range ICE vehicles? There is certainly plenty of infrastructure, and fueling such a vehicle would only take about 1 minute. Clearly greater range is very desirable to most people, even when infrastructure and fast fill times are there.

Second: when I go on a road trip (if I ever do again) I want to be the one that decides how often I take a potty break, NOT THE CAR.

In order for EVs to be taken seriously and widely adopted, they have to be a step forward, not a step backkward, this includes overall range. A 400-mile range EV is what is needed in order for the masses to really want to adopt EVs. . . .

Click to expand...

Note that the article title is misleading, as it describes what a Model 3 using such an REX system might cost, as opposed to a (currently unavailable) BEV of the same range, which would also be far heavier and more expensive. Also see the same author's earlier article, which covers many of the same points in more depth:

Op-Ed: Let The Tesla Bulls Rage On And Chuckle At The Bears

Click to expand...

https://insideevs.com/news/347416/tesla-bulls-rage-on-bears-will-lose/

I'm not convinced we'll be hitting an insurmountable resource wall for batteries. Li-ion is almost certainly not the final state of the art. Other more abundant materials will likely be employed. Aluminum and Carbon alternatives are already being developed.

Nubo said:

I'm not convinced we'll be hitting an insurmountable resource wall for batteries. Li-ion is almost certainly not the final state of the art. Other more abundant materials will likely be employed. Aluminum and Carbon alternatives are already being developed.

Click to expand...

There are alternatives under development, although when/if they'll be commercialized remains to be seen. The issue for now is the rate at which manufacturing capacity can be ramped up, as well as the cost of batteries which currently puts BEVs which are full ICE replacements beyond the ability of most people to buy them, even assuming they'd fit in a vehicle.