What's Still Killing the Electric Car?

[strider]

That would contradict most of the information I've seen. Can you quote your source or tell us what rare metals are needed for an EV that is not needed for an ICE vehicle?

The problem is that not all EV's are created equal. Many of them use permanent magnet motors, NiMH or lead-acid batteries, etc (I believe all hybrids and many PHEV's use such things). Those things are rare, hazardous to mine, toxic, etc. I've had people ask me about safety, ecological damage of making/discarding the battery, being held captive by needing rare earth metals from China, etc. They are surprised when I tell them that the drive train (motor/batteries) in the Tesla don't use rare earths and aren't toxic. Yes, the computers in the car use rare earths but an ICE has just as many computers as a Tesla so it's not any worse off

But in studies like this they lump in all the golf carts and "city" EVs that do use cheaper "bad stuff" in their batteries and motors.

[Norbert]

That would contradict most of the information I've seen. Can you quote your source or tell us what rare metals are needed for an EV that is not needed for an ICE vehicle?

While Tesla's AC induction motors do *not* use rare metals, other electric motors (with permanent magnets) from some other manufacturers do. AFAIK know Tesla does not use "rare metals" at all (or only in tiny amounts). JRP3 knows a lot about that.

[Mookuh]

That would contradict most of the information I've seen. Can you quote your source or tell us what rare metals are needed for an EV that is not needed for an ICE vehicle?

From the study I linked, page 12/13:
"Da ein Vergleich von elektrischer Mobilität mit konventioneller Mobilität gemacht wird, müssen natürlich auch die kritischen Themen für Batteriefahrzeuge abgedeckt werden. Diese sind einerseits die Nutzung von knappen Ressourcen, namentlich von seltenen Metallen, und andererseits die Strombereitstellung. Die Nutzung knapper Ressourcen wird durch den kumulierten Exergiebedarf für Metalle und Mineralien bewerten."
Translation:
"As a comparison between electric and conventional mobility is being made, critical subjects for BEVs have to be covered. Those are the usage of limited resources, namely of rare metals, on the one hand and the generation of electricity on the other. The usage of rare resources is being evaluated by the cumulated exergy demand for metals and minerals"

In the results part, they conclude (after their calculations, of course) that the cumulated exergy demand (CExD) for metals and minerals is higher for BEVs.
From Page 140 of the same study:
"[...] und der kumulierte Exergieaufwand Metalle ist für alle Elektro- und Plug-in-Hybridvarianten in jedem Fall höher als für die ICE-Fahrzeuge und sicher am höchsten für die PV-Strom betriebenen Fahrzeuge"
Translation:
"[...] and the cumulated exergy demand in metals for all electric and plug-in-hybrid variants is higher than for ICE-vehicles in every case and certainly highest for vehicles powered by solarpower."

It is important to note that in the variant where the BEVs are fueled from solar, the materials used to construct the solar panels would also be calculated as "used by the EV". There was *not* an analysis made about BEVs powered purely from wind power, presumeably because there is not too many wind turbines in Switzerland. There is also no analysis for BEVs powered purely from hydro.
I'm also not completely sure what they define as a "rare" metal, but I do believe Lithium and Manganese fit the bill.

A few assumptions that they made are that every 2nd BEV has to replace its battery once to reach the 150.000km mark which they assesed for the life cycle of the vehicles, and the batterys were assumed to be nickel and cobalt free, with a LiMn2O4-cathode.

They do conclude that Hybrids and BEVs rank better in a lot of other categories (though, again, it depends where the power is coming from) and they also mentioned that the technology for BEVs has more potential for improvement than ICE-vehicles do. On the slide presentation the first conclusion is "EVs got potential!"
And they were right. Even today, 2 years later, the batteries of Tesla outperform their assumptions by a fair margin, and it's only going uphill from here. With full torque

Edit: Finally, something in English:Applying Cumulative Energy Demand (CExD) Indicators to the ecoinvent Database(where the study I mentioned took its data from)

[neroden]

I'm also not completely sure what they define as a "rare" metal, but I do believe Lithium and Manganese fit the bill.

Poor assumption there. Lithium doesn't qualify as rare by any measure; excess supplies are a good description of the situation with lithium. Manganese is somewhat rare.

At the end of the day, more efficient batteries are needed. However, there is a range of technologies in development that look rather promising, thus I remain in good spirit that EVs will finally get their breakthrough. I think of EVs with Li-Ion batteries as a transient technology. Viable today, but only one step in the evolution of personal transportation.

Absolutely. I happen to be working with some people with revolutionary new energy storage technology designs. Of course, their storage technology is completely compatible with electric motors, and not with "burn and explode" mechancial engines. They've got a better solar panel design too. Both are based, loosely speaking, on direct solution of standard quantum-mechanical equations which were thought to be too hard to solve. Of course, even if their designs have a fatal flaw (they don't), thousands of other groups are working on electromagnetic energy storage and photon-to-electromagnetic conversion.

Within 20 years, as new tech makes it into mass production, people are going to be wondering "Why did we ever use combustion engines?"

[Lloyd]

I'm also not completely sure what they define as a "rare" metal, but I do believe Lithium and Manganese fit the bill.

Poor assumption there. Lithium doesn't qualify as rare by any measure; excess supplies are a good description of the situation with lithium. Manganese is somewhat rare.

@mookuh: Lithium and Manganese are not Rare Earth Metals, and are not toxic, and totally recycleable. From Wiki :Manganese compounds are less toxic than those of other widespread metals, such as nickel and copper. Manganese is a "Trace Mineral" necessary for many biological processes.

[neroden]

Missing the boat... The level of misinformation continues to astound me.

What you describe is pretty disgusting!

[jerry33]

The problem is that not all EV's are created equal. Many of them use permanent magnet motors, NiMH or lead-acid batteries, etc (I believe all hybrids and many PHEV's use such things). Those things are rare, hazardous to mine, toxic, etc.

Okay, let's discuss NiMH. It often gets a bad rep because the Prius detractors have gone back to the 1960s and have dug up information from then when the Sudbury mine was pretty bad (it opened in about 1908 when there were no standards at all). During the 1970s and 80s the mine was cleaned up and has won awards from Environment Canada. But even if it wasn't cleaned up, very little of the nickel mined there goes to batteries of all types (1% is the number that has been bandied about--I haven't been able to find an authoritative source). Most nickel production goes in to chrome, tableware, coins, and other products. So ICE cars should get just as bad a rap for using chrome because the nickel comes from the same places.

Nickel isn't all that rare. Open pit mines are not particularly hazardous. The battery is not toxic (especially when compared to lead-acid). It's fully recyclable.

NiMh is an alkaline cell, not acidic. It uses potassium hydroxide as the electrolyte, potassium hydroxide is also known as KOH, Lye, and Potash. It was once used to make soap and is the main ingredient in drain cleaners as the KOH turns fat and grease buildup in the drain into soap. Lumping in NiMH with lead-acid isn't any better than lumping in LIon with lead-acid.

Information on Sudbury is here and here.

Sorry for the rant, but this kind of mis-information pushes one of my hot-buttons.

[hcsharp]

What you describe is pretty disgusting!

It's interesting to me the variance from one dealer to another. 1.5 hrs away is another Chevy dealer who is very enthusiastic about the Volt, keeps at least 1 or 2 in inventory, and the head of sales, who can drive any car he wants, prefers the Volt over every car in their lot. The Nissan dealer in the same town stocks the Leaf. 1.25hrs in the other direction is a Chevy dealer who recently installed about $300,000 of solar panels on the roof of the dealership and promotes clean transportation. They stand in sharp contrast to my local Chevy and Nissan dealers. The local Toyota dealer is also enthusiastic and is harassing Toyota to hurry up with the e-Rav4. He says the local demographics are perfect for EV sales, except he says it won't sell without AWD!

[richkae]

I think one of the things still killing the electric car is the SAE.
Lots of people are waiting for the SAE DC fast charge standard. I think the SAE is actively obstructing to the best of its ability in order to FUD up the market.
Who is in the SAE? Automotive engineers that work for the major car companies.
How many of them have a BEV that needs DC fast charging? None of the big three. They like the underpowered crap 30 amp J1772 that favors EREVs.
The only mainstream automaker with a BEV has already picked a competing system in the US. ( Nissan, Mitsu almost doesn't count )

I think waiting for the SAE DC fast charge standard is a waste of time and I am glad Tesla did not.

The standards will be made by the market - but we will need adapters for a long time until there is a winner.

[hcsharp]

I think one of the things still killing the electric car is the SAE.
Lots of people are waiting for the SAE DC fast charge standard. I think the SAE is actively obstructing to the best of its ability in order to FUD up the market.
Who is in the SAE? Automotive engineers that work for the major car companies.
How many of them have a BEV that needs DC fast charging? None of the big three. They like the underpowered crap 30 amp J1772 that favors EREVs.
The only mainstream automaker with a BEV has already picked a competing system in the US. ( Nissan, Mitsu almost doesn't count )

I think waiting for the SAE DC fast charge standard is a waste of time and I am glad Tesla did not.

The standards will be made by the market - but we will need adapters for a long time until there is a winner.

Agree completely. I was glad to see Tesla abandon J-1772 because it's a poor standard. It was originally designed for 32 amps and then later they basically said "Maybe we can get away with 80A even if it's marginal." The pins are too small and heat up at 60 - 80A and not enough contact area, especially for an automotive application where dust is prevalent. Now it's been deployed everywhere in the US so we are stuck with it and it's limitations. I hate to think what they will come up with for DC fast charging and totally agree it is one factor killing the electric car (but not the biggest!). That's why Tesla abandoned the SAE and decided to install their own fast charging network. They're getting lots of flack for it but it was the best choice.