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)