When Will Internal Combustion Engine Cars Account For Less Than 5% Of New Car Sales In The US? (1 Viewer)

[the moops]

The Expanse, here we come

Love that show. So good

 

[massraider]

NASA is supposed to send a probe this fall or early winter to 16 Psyche, an asteroid believed to have more precious metals than what is on Earth. Another asteroid, Ceres is believed to be an ideal candidate for lithium. (Sorry don't have links handy.)

Granted, the point of the NASA mission is to determine how accurately we guestimate the makeup of these space rocks, and the technology to put large equipment into space is just in early testing phases, and "return [robotic] missions" still struggle with funding but assuming that the resources are actually there this is a different type of problem to solve. That is I think long distance travel is currently a problem of imagination, while getting to the resources in an economically viable means has been reduced to a bunch of engineering problems which numerous private and public organizations are pursuing. Again, assuming the compositions are close to what science currently guestimates.

So you're telling me we are going to send up a rocket with Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck again, except this time they re-direct an unlimited supply of lithium to Earth?

This is good news. One less thing to worry about.

 

[beer 30]

I was reading this recently.

You could probably do that for a good bit of the materials needed in this process. I mentioned Cobalt because I'm reading about it now but there are other materials that unlike all the access we have to a plethora of stuff here in the US, the Chinese have been way ahead of us in acquiring the rights to much of it around the world. I'm not troubled by that right now because China needs us (US) as much as we need them but you can see that there is leverage there that we (US) don't control and could be used against us if need be.

NASA is supposed to send a probe this fall or early winter to 16 Psyche, an asteroid believed to have more precious metals than what is on Earth. Another asteroid, Ceres is believed to be an ideal candidate for lithium. (Sorry don't have links handy.)

Granted, the point of the NASA mission is to determine how accurately we guestimate the makeup of these space rocks, and the technology to put large equipment into space is just in early testing phases, and "return [robotic] missions" still struggle with funding but assuming that the resources are actually there this is a different type of problem to solve. That is I think long distance travel is currently a problem of imagination, while getting to the resources in an economically viable means has been reduced to a bunch of engineering problems which numerous private and public organizations are pursuing. Again, assuming the compositions are close to what science currently guestimates.

Yea I've been following that along and I think as we continue to exploit our planets resources this is a viable avenue for precious metals and minerals in short supply on Earth. I question the speed of developing this process in time to meet the needs of the demand for EV. This is some bad *** stuff if we pull it off.

 

[beer 30]

So you're telling me we are going to send up a rocket with Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck again, except this time they re-direct an unlimited supply of lithium to Earth?

This is good news. One less thing to worry about.

I almost mentioned Armageddon in my response, man I love that movies. Lets think about it though, we blow up the rock, essentially making big ones into little ones and direct the debris field to a collection point and save a lot of time and energy mining on the rock. What could go wrong?

 

[Gally]

I almost mentioned Armageddon in my response, man I love that movies. Lets think about it though, we blow up the rock, essentially making big ones into little ones and direct the debris field to a collection point and save a lot of time and energy mining on the rock. What could go wrong?

We lose Bruce Willis again. Nobody wants that.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yea I've been following that along and I think as we continue to exploit our planets resources this is a viable avenue for precious metals and minerals in short supply on Earth. I question the speed of developing this process in time to meet the needs of the demand for EV. This is some bad *** stuff if we pull it off.

While getting there and bringing the stuff back is presently an engineering problem (set of problems), there is also an economic problem waiting in the wings. If the assumptions on what is out there are correct, the large profits of such an operation probably only briefly exist. That is when only a few companies are bringing back manageable supplies of various metals and minerals and whatever there is profit to be made. If everyone and their brother is at it and successful, then the market will just become flooded.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We lose Bruce Willis again. Nobody wants that.

Already too much in the news for the wrong reasons.

 

[Gally]

We lose Bruce Willis again. Nobody wants that.

Already too much in the news for the wrong reasons.

Ok, well worse then and we lost Ben Affleck this time....hahaha

 

[GroveDiesel]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive

While the upfront cost is more, that is offset with tax credits, and couple that with the cheaper fuel and maintenance and the cost difference is negligible at best

I understand, but people still need to be willing to purchase/pay for a vehicle which costs $10-20K more up front than the comparable ICE.

For those on the lower end of the economic scale, the cost of purchasing a used vehicle could be substantially higher than it is now. The last 4 vehicles I’ve purchased have all been used. 3 of the 4 have made it 150,000+ miles with no major parts repair/replacement. The 4th is at 60,000 now and so far it’s had no issues. But buy an EV near 100,000 miles and you know you’re going to be forced to sink $5-20k into replacing the batteries fairly soon. That’s a huge required expense for those on the lower end of the economic scale.

We need huge advancements in battery technology and costs.

 

[beer 30]

While getting there and bringing the stuff back is presently an engineering problem (set of problems), there is also an economic problem waiting in the wings. If the assumptions on what is out there are correct, the large profits of such an operation probably only briefly exist. That is when only a few companies are bringing back manageable supplies of various metals and minerals and whatever there is profit to be made. If everyone and their brother is at it and successful, then the market will just become flooded.

Given that we are struggling to get a rocket into space at this point I'm skeptical this happens in my lifetime but I would love to see it. You're talking multiple launches to and fro, transporting what I imagine would large, massive payloads back to earth. I'm not sure how we do that off of a barren rock with the only infrastructure to support it brought there from previous trips within a very tight timeframe. Arguably, my only point of reference is Hollywood so more than willing to have my imagination expanded by actual fact.

Ok, well worse then and we lost Ben Affleck this time....hahaha

I'm willing to sacrifice Ben Affleck on the alter of progress.

 

[Ron Swanson]

For those on the lower end of the economic scale, the cost of purchasing a used vehicle could be substantially higher than it is now. The last 4 vehicles I’ve purchased have all been used. 3 of the 4 have made it 150,000+ miles with no major parts repair/replacement. The 4th is at 60,000 now and so far it’s had no issues. But buy an EV near 100,000 miles and you know you’re going to be forced to sink $5-20k into replacing the batteries fairly soon. That’s a huge required expense for those on the lower end of the economic scale.

We need huge advancements in battery technology and costs.

The worst case scenario on real world battery life that we've all accepted as the gospel doesn't appear to be factual based on the Teslas that are now aging to that 8 year mark. And most battery failures are not catastrophic in nature that require an entire pack replacement. Most are individual cells that can be replaced or a gradual decline in range. The feeling now is that older EV's simply become shorter range vehicles as they age.

 

[ChicoCat]

Tough one.

You'd have to see an almost unprecedented full court press of government pressure (rebates/excessive taxes on fossils), combined with improved technology AND a cultural shift. I guess we are talking about the grandchildren of todays under 18 year old buying these cars, and I thnk the demographics favor EVS with the youths.....but not overwhelming enough to get it down to under 5% 50 years from now. If there was a new "New Deal political moment in this country.....maybe. But I don't really see the political landscape trending that way anytime soon.

I'd vote past 2075.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

 

[Van Dyman]

For those on the lower end of the economic scale, the cost of purchasing a used vehicle could be substantially higher than it is now. The last 4 vehicles I’ve purchased have all been used. 3 of the 4 have made it 150,000+ miles with no major parts repair/replacement. The 4th is at 60,000 now and so far it’s had no issues. But buy an EV near 100,000 miles and you know you’re going to be forced to sink $5-20k into replacing the batteries fairly soon. That’s a huge required expense for those on the lower end of the economic scale.

We need huge advancements in battery technology and costs.

The worst case scenario on real world battery life that we've all accepted as the gospel doesn't appear to be factual based on the Teslas that are now aging to that 8 year mark. And most battery failures are not catastrophic in nature that require an entire pack replacement. Most are individual cells that can be replaced or a gradual decline in range. The feeling now is that older EV's simply become shorter range vehicles as they age.

I almost posted the same thing. But something just crossed my mind since GroveDiesel's post was narrowly qualified. If there is some correlation where "those on the lower end of the economic scale" tend to require a higher range vehicle, then he could be onto something. As far as agreeing with you, yeah, I think there will definitely be scenarios where those older, reduced-range EVs are perfectly acceptable for folks like me...WFH, rarely drive, always short trips, and have a second car for longer trips.

 

[Keerock]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

ELI5

 

[The Duff Man]

I said 2055.

I expect that in future the tailwind that sales get from those that want to be “green” will disappear. That includes government support.

Then the transition will be driven only on the merits/cost of the technology. But the technology will advance to the point that it can win on its own merits.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I said 2055.

I expect that in future the tailwind that sales get from those that want to be “green” will disappear. That includes government support.

Then the transition will be driven only on the merits/cost of the technology. But the technology will advance to the point that it can win on its own merits.

I have a hard time believing that "on merits" that for at least most of us we would not be better served with an EV over ICE today ignoring the supply and availability. As long as Americans like change as much as they do, I think that the supply and availability will not stray too far behind to change those merits. Yeah, I get that there are exceptions for most everyone, but I think we generally underestimate how much resources we allocate daily to cover those few exceptions. I know I do!

 

[JAA]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

 

[The General]

I said 2055.

I expect that in future the tailwind that sales get from those that want to be “green” will disappear. That includes government support.

Then the transition will be driven only on the merits/cost of the technology. But the technology will advance to the point that it can win on its own merits.

The cars are definitely more fun to drive.

Tesla has opened the door.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

Wind and solar are providing massive amounts of electricity today, without significant storage.

 

[ghostguy123]

I want a mini nuclear reactor in my car keeping it charged forever.
Otherwise, it's going to be a combo of gas and electric for the next 50 years easy.

Any way to charge a car with just solar? Both an at home plug, also panels on the car constantly absorbing solar when it's outside?

 

[MTskibum]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

If every household in the country had 1 electric car we could use those as the storage capacity for the solar/wind. We could have a smart grid where the cars would be charged when the solar/wind was producing excess capacity and the grid could even buy energy back from the consumer when the demand for power outweighed the supply.

The problem you are describing would be solved by electric cars.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

Wind and solar are providing massive amounts of electricity today, without significant storage.

yes, but what JAA is referencing is that wind/solar are not dispatchable resources (can't be turned up and down based on the grid power requirements) and are difficult to schedule into the baseload. Generation resources are scheduled months, weeks, days, hours, and minutes ahead - if it isn't as sunny as predicted or the wind doesn't blow as much - the amount of power scheduled into the baseload from those resources will be lower and the grid operator has to find resources that can make up that difference - typically gas plants.

 

[JAA]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

Wind and solar are providing massive amounts of electricity today, without significant storage.

It doesnt matter.

You are doing 'generation'. You still need transmission and distribution for it to be valuable. Sure, it has value, but without storage its only as good as when the wind blows and when the suns out. Thats the issue.

Here is some data on share: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

For renewables to be really successful, they need storage. Total generation and peak output are not that valuable to an electric grid which requires 24/7/365 with 5 9's of operability.

 

[MTskibum]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

Wind and solar are providing massive amounts of electricity today, without significant storage.

It doesnt matter.

You are doing 'generation'. You still need transmission and distribution for it to be valuable. Sure, it has value, but without storage its only as good as when the wind blows and when the suns out. Thats the issue.

Here is some data on share: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

For renewables to be really successful, they need storage. Total generation and peak output are not that valuable to an electric grid which requires 24/7/365 with 5 9's of operability.

I cleaned up my last post and got rid of the sarcasm, sorry about that. There are two different ways electric cars will solve this problem.

1. If a house has the proper charging setup they can use their car as grid storage, buying excess electricity when it is cheap and selling back when there is a high demand. The correct setup is needed for this, however we should get to that point before too long.

2. When EV batteries degrade in performance down to the 60-70% level they are not good for transportation, however they can be repurposed as grid storage batteries. These batteries can be grouped in facilities for cheap large scale storage using materials that would have been recycled instead. We are still at least 15 years away from this being a solution though.

 

[JAA]

Loading…

twitter.com

Try to ignore the snark. The chart is interesting.

Yea - whats interesting is that wind and solar require storage. Wind and solar are not silver bullets.

Unless we get massive technological breakthroughs in storage or massive cost reductions in building/decommissioning nuclear, wind and solar are not /that/ valuable.

Wind and solar are providing massive amounts of electricity today, without significant storage.

It doesnt matter.

You are doing 'generation'. You still need transmission and distribution for it to be valuable. Sure, it has value, but without storage its only as good as when the wind blows and when the suns out. Thats the issue.

Here is some data on share: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

For renewables to be really successful, they need storage. Total generation and peak output are not that valuable to an electric grid which requires 24/7/365 with 5 9's of operability.

I cleaned up my last post and got rid of the sarcasm, sorry about that. There are two different ways electric cars will solve this problem.

1. If a house has the proper charging setup they can use their car as grid storage, buying excess electricity when it is cheap and selling back when there is a high demand. The correct setup is needed for this, however we should get to that point before too long.

2. When EV batteries degrade in performance down to the 60-70% level they are not good for transportation, however they can be repurposed as grid storage batteries. These batteries can be grouped in facilities for cheap large scale storage using materials that would have been recycled instead. We are still at least 15 years away from this being a solution though.

Solar is kinda expensive, a bit unpredictable, and not available in many many locations. Your plan is OK from that front but its not really a full time solution.

Wind is a bad example as wind farms are the best bet. Those don't go up in neighborhoods. Quite the opposite, NIMBYs hate wind. This means you need to find long out places to farm and then transmission and storage of excess.

 

[MTskibum]

Solar is kinda expensive, a bit unpredictable, and not available in many many locations. Your plan is OK from that front but its not really a full time solution.

Wind is a bad example as wind farms are the best bet. Those don't go up in neighborhoods. Quite the opposite, NIMBYs hate wind. This means you need to find long out places to farm and then transmission and storage of excess.

But even if it is wind you can have cars soak up that excess power when it is windy and then redistribute that power when the wind stops blowing. This can happen even if the wind farm is ~400 miles away from the consumers. The power source does not need to be next to the storage. You still suffer the same amount of transmission loss whether you are storing next to the power generation or next to the consumers.

 

[pollardsvision]

Many have touted the Chevy Bolt as a great affordable EV, which seems to be true.

So, like clockwork, GM is killing it off at the end of this year

Detroit has shown over the last 75+ years that they will not commit to producing affordable, efficient vehicle for the masses. In terms of EV's, they will stay in this space only as a way to sell $90K trucks and SUV's. You'll be shocked to know the Bolt plant will now be used to build Silverado/Sierra EV's.

I'm not trusting the movement if it's only Detroit, Tesla, and VW. When we start seeing Japanese makers fully commit, then I'll take it seriously. They have been churning out affordable, quality vehicles for decades while Detroit has done the opposite.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Many have touted the Chevy Bolt as a great affordable EV, which seems to be true.

So, like clockwork, GM is killing it off at the end of this year

Detroit has shown over the last 75+ years that they will not commit to producing affordable, efficient vehicle for the masses. In terms of EV's, they will stay in this space only as a way to sell $90K trucks and SUV's. You'll be shocked to know the Bolt plant will now be used to build Silverado/Sierra EV's.

I'm not trusting the movement if it's only Detroit, Tesla, and VW. When we start seeing Japanese makers fully commit, then I'll take it seriously. They have been churning out affordable, quality vehicles for decades while Detroit has done the opposite.

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I want a mini nuclear reactor in my car keeping it charged forever.
Otherwise, it's going to be a combo of gas and electric for the next 50 years easy.

Any way to charge a car with just solar? Both an at home plug, also panels on the car constantly absorbing solar when it's outside?

Aptera

 

[TripItUp]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

 

[TripItUp]

Regarding the power grid.

There will be a push for nuclear IMHO...see Elon Musk's recent comments regarding German electricity production.

You'll see California lead the way as an example of alternative energy sources...other states will follow barring the states that are politically tied to black energy.

*this is not a political post

 

[Terminalxylem]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I hope you‘re right, though I don’t think mechanical complexity drives the price.

 

[TripItUp]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I hope you‘re right, though I don’t think mechanical complexity drives the price.

From an overall cost perspective including maintenance, warranty, insurance etc. The simplicity of the EV is going to be a huge money saver over the life of the car.

 

[TripItUp]

So nearly 28% of poll respondents selected after 2075.

That's pretty shocking to me.

 

[pollardsvision]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I don't disagree, I have no idea.

But who's going to make these cheap entry level EV's for the US market?

Please don't say GM, Ford or, Stellantis. They do not do cheap entry level. If they pretend to, they will produce so few that it won't matter. Or like the Bolt, they will kill it and blame it on "old tech" (for a model that only started being produced 6 years ago).

Leaf, Niro, and Kona are all solid affordable options, but I'd guess most Americans have never seen any of them.

 

[General Malaise]

The current configuration of EV battery chemistry isn't reliant on precious metals. It might be instructive to review what a precious metal is vs the metals needed to for the EV revolution.

 

[Terminalxylem]

So nearly 28% of poll respondents selected after 2075.

That's pretty shocking to me.

Yet, it’s the most common response.

 

[Terminalxylem]

The current configuration of EV battery chemistry isn't reliant on precious metals. It might be instructive to review what a precious metal is vs the metals needed to for the EV revolution.

Semantics aside, I think the point is they’re rare in the US, forcing us to rely on imported materials from places like China and Africa, plus they are limited in quantity.

AFAIK, the main metals of concern are lithium, cobalt and manganese + rare earth metals like neodymium, terbium and dysprosium.

 

[pollardsvision]

Really, the 2075 response doesn't have anything to do with EV's.

It's about America. Energy efficient just isn't what we do. Especially in the car market. Actually, "vehicle market" because American automakers don't really make cars anymore. Americans don't buy them.

We want trucks, SUV's, and 6000 square foot homes with 3 people living in them.

Just makes it hard imagine an America with everybody driving around in Nissan Leaf's (leaves?).

Although, I could see an America with everybody driving 8000 pound F-150 Lightnings.

 

[General Malaise]

The current configuration of EV battery chemistry isn't reliant on precious metals. It might be instructive to review what a precious metal is vs the metals needed to for the EV revolution.

Semantics aside, I think the point is they’re rare in the US, forcing us to rely on imported materials from places like China and Africa, plus they are limited in quantity.

AFAIK, the main metals of concern are lithium, cobalt and manganese.

And nickel and tin.

Semantics needs to be used here because precious metals are a different category altogether. You're in healthcare, correct? Would you not jump in when folks conflate respiratory issues with circulatory?

The US and China are both relying on the DRC to supply the cobalt we have to have for EV advancement. The difference is that the Chinese are in the DRC, building roads, infrastructure and paying artisanal miners for material the way we pay folks returning bottles and cans. They are refining that material in China, slapping massive export taxes on it and keeping what they want for themselves.

65% of the world's cobalt comes from The DRC and the other spots with high concentrations have incredibly tough mining standards. In short, China has kicked our ASSSSS here recognizing the importance of cobalt.

Lithium is everywhere. It's a salt in Chile and Argentina and Nevada that just sits in piles as the water evaporates out of it. In Canada, it's found all over in rock spodumene. Friendly mining jurisdictions.

The US has minerals in ground but regulations and NIMBY mindsets prevent meaningful mining. I mean, once you get a permit to mine from the US, the State you are in, then you gotta get a green light from Native Americans. Gllllllll

That's not to say the EV revolution isn't coming. I believe it's unavoidable. The world has made a pivot in thought. A whole hell of a lot of the raw materials needed are going to come from recycling. Battery chemistry composition will change a little too so less cobalt is needed but the runway needed for commercial adoption of new technology is a far longer road than most of us consider. I mean, the first lithium ion battery was introduced in 1980, 42 years ago. We've not done that much in the way of adoption but we are getting there.

 

[pollardsvision]

All that really matters is......how soon can we get to an EV adoption rate high enough that every Tesla driver doesn't feel the need to have a snarky license plate with some sort of "I don't buy gas" pun.

I think we can all agree on that.

 

[BassNBrew]

If America decides the electric F-150 is awesome, I might change my answer.

If you’re ever in Fort Mill, SC I could probably hook you up with a test drive with one of the 366 we have sitting around.

Are they for sale?

 

[Terminalxylem]

The current configuration of EV battery chemistry isn't reliant on precious metals. It might be instructive to review what a precious metal is vs the metals needed to for the EV revolution.

Semantics aside, I think the point is they’re rare in the US, forcing us to rely on imported materials from places like China and Africa, plus they are limited in quantity.

AFAIK, the main metals of concern are lithium, cobalt and manganese.

And nickel and tin.

Semantics needs to be used here because precious metals are a different category altogether. You're in healthcare, correct? Would you not jump in when folks conflate respiratory issues with circulatory?

The US and China are both relying on the DRC to supply the cobalt we have to have for EV advancement. The difference is that the Chinese are in the DRC, building roads, infrastructure and paying artisanal miners for material the way we pay folks returning bottles and cans. They are refining that material in China, slapping massive export taxes on it and keeping what they want for themselves.

65% of the world's cobalt comes from The DRC and the other spots with high concentrations have incredibly tough mining standards. In short, China has kicked our ASSSSS here recognizing the importance of cobalt.

Lithium is everywhere. It's a salt in Chile and Argentina and Nevada that just sits in piles as the water evaporates out of it. In Canada, it's found all over in rock spodumene. Friendly mining jurisdictions.

The US has minerals in ground but regulations and NIMBY mindsets prevent meaningful mining. I mean, once you get a permit to mine from the US, the State you are in, then you gotta get a green light from Native Americans. Gllllllll

That's not to say the EV revolution isn't coming. I believe it's unavoidable. The world has made a pivot in thought. A whole hell of a lot of the raw materials needed are going to come from recycling. Battery chemistry composition will change a little too so less cobalt is needed but the runway needed for commercial adoption of new technology is a far longer road than most of us consider. I mean, the first lithium ion battery was introduced in 1980, 42 years ago. We've not done that much in the way of adoption but we are getting there.

Meh, I don’t care if one knows their a$$ from their pie-hole when discussing healthcare.

But thanks for the info. In your opinion, which metal(s) are most limiting in widespread, affordable EV production? Cobalt and what else? I ask because I was under the impression some rarer metals were more critical bottlenecks.

 

[General Malaise]

All that really matters is......how soon can we get to an EV adoption rate high enough that every Tesla driver doesn't feel the need to have a snarky license plate with some sort of "I don't buy gas" pun.

I think we can all agree on that.

One of our LPs used CO27 as his license plate for his Tesla. That company cost him millions in realized losses. Now he whines about the automatic trunk latch not working. Among other things.

 

[General Malaise]

The current configuration of EV battery chemistry isn't reliant on precious metals. It might be instructive to review what a precious metal is vs the metals needed to for the EV revolution.

Semantics aside, I think the point is they’re rare in the US, forcing us to rely on imported materials from places like China and Africa, plus they are limited in quantity.

AFAIK, the main metals of concern are lithium, cobalt and manganese.

And nickel and tin.

Semantics needs to be used here because precious metals are a different category altogether. You're in healthcare, correct? Would you not jump in when folks conflate respiratory issues with circulatory?

The US and China are both relying on the DRC to supply the cobalt we have to have for EV advancement. The difference is that the Chinese are in the DRC, building roads, infrastructure and paying artisanal miners for material the way we pay folks returning bottles and cans. They are refining that material in China, slapping massive export taxes on it and keeping what they want for themselves.

65% of the world's cobalt comes from The DRC and the other spots with high concentrations have incredibly tough mining standards. In short, China has kicked our ASSSSS here recognizing the importance of cobalt.

Lithium is everywhere. It's a salt in Chile and Argentina and Nevada that just sits in piles as the water evaporates out of it. In Canada, it's found all over in rock spodumene. Friendly mining jurisdictions.

The US has minerals in ground but regulations and NIMBY mindsets prevent meaningful mining. I mean, once you get a permit to mine from the US, the State you are in, then you gotta get a green light from Native Americans. Gllllllll

That's not to say the EV revolution isn't coming. I believe it's unavoidable. The world has made a pivot in thought. A whole hell of a lot of the raw materials needed are going to come from recycling. Battery chemistry composition will change a little too so less cobalt is needed but the runway needed for commercial adoption of new technology is a far longer road than most of us consider. I mean, the first lithium ion battery was introduced in 1980, 42 years ago. We've not done that much in the way of adoption but we are getting there.

Meh, I don’t care if one knows their a$$ from their pie-hole when discussing healthcare.

But thanks for the info. In your opinion, which metal(s) are most limiting in widespread, affordable EV production? Cobalt and what else? I ask because I was under the impression some rarer metals were more critical bottlenecks.

Well, if we are discussing sending a rocket up to an astroid to retrieve "precious metals" it might be a little educational to submit that precious metals aren't a part of this. Precious metals (platinum/palladium) are why folks are stealing catalytic converters.

Cobalt, nickel and tin are the critical elements under supply constraint. These are (right now) irreplaceable to EV battery composition.
Rare earth elements play a minor role but those are mostly needed for magnets, which are needed in all cars, not just EVs. But these are not "rare". We (the US) have them at Mountain Pass (used to mine them for color TVs) but the mining is a very dirty affair. So China has the world's monopoly there because they don't have the same mining standards and refine most of the worlds need of REE.

Tin is a metal you should all educate yourselves on. It's the glue that holds this all together.

 

[The General]

So nearly 28% of poll respondents selected after 2075.

That's pretty shocking to me.

Yet, it’s the most common response.

If in 50 years we are still use an internal combustion engine to drive to the supermarket well that would be pretty disappointing.

 

[bigbottom]

So nearly 28% of poll respondents selected after 2075.

That's pretty shocking to me.

Yet, it’s the most common response.

If in 50 years we are still use an internal combustion engine to drive to the supermarket well that would be pretty disappointing.

Why, if, say, it’s only 1 in 10 of us?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive, and the oil industry is gonna fight it tooth and nail.

I hope I'm wrong. TBH, I'd rather autonomous vehicles supplant private car ownership, though that doesn't seem imminent either.

I would actually say the opposite, and that the oil industry has pretty much resigned itself to losing a ton of market share.

This is a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQbmpecxS2w

Cliffs notes is basically that oil companies have completed stopped building new pipelines and new rigs for the future in order to maximize profits for the present, as they're worried demand won't last long enough for those kinds of long-term projects to pay off anymore.

Additionally in the past when new technologies came out that threatened them they would typically increase supply to drive down oil prices (why do we need hybrids/EVs if gas is cheap anyway?) but now even with EVs they've done the complete opposite and restricted supply to further drive up the price of oil (to maximize near-term profits) at the expense of people getting more and more annoyed with having to buy gas.

 

[The General]

So nearly 28% of poll respondents selected after 2075.

That's pretty shocking to me.

Yet, it’s the most common response.

If in 50 years we are still use an internal combustion engine to drive to the supermarket well that would be pretty disappointing.

Why, if, say, it’s only 1 in 10 of us?

That would be better. Just hoping we have moved on and some much better, more efficient tech would have have taken root.