Electric Vehicles. Batteries vs oil: A comparison of raw material needs

[Ken Fabian]

This article doesn't really do the issue justice but it does touch on something that has bugged me about claims about unacceptable waste from a shift to EV's - the full range of waste that comes from the existing ICE vehicle use and manufacturing streams - including the FF's used to refine FF's, not just fuel used directly in the vehicle, and things like coal ash from manufacturing (aka fly ash, high in heavy metals that, after CO2 may be the 2nd largest single form of waste)are often passed over.

Presuming high levels of future battery recycling may be like presuming coal ash will be safely managed, ie wishful thinking, yet it is a clear policy objective in many nations, with both R&D support and regulations coming into play.

I think EV's would have to make a LOT more waste, even on a per vehicle basis, to come anywhere near the volumes of waste Fossil Fuel dependence produces.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Ken Fabian

[fred2014]

That article reads like a propoganda piece to me.

Let us hope the stupid notion of using batteries dies a death real soon.

 

question: Which generates the most CO2 ?

a) Running a current big mercedes diesel car

b) Running a current tesla electric vehicle

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, fred2014 said:

That article reads like a propoganda piece to me.

Let us hope the stupid notion of using batteries dies a death real soon.

Storing energy may be useful one day, let's not confuse propoganda with information...

[studiot]

1 hour ago, fred2014 said:

That article reads like a propoganda piece to me.

 

I agree but then lithium cells are not necessarily the way forward.

 

1 hour ago, fred2014 said:

Let us hope the stupid notion of using batteries dies a death real soon.

A shortsighted view.

1 hour ago, fred2014 said:

question: Which generates the most CO2 ?

a) Running a current big mercedes diesel car

b) Running a current tesla electric vehicle

Answer both  :

Look at this heavy excavator powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

Zero CO₂

 

Test post

Edit posting system appears to be working for me.

Edited March 3, 2021 by studiot
test

[swansont]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Look at this heavy excavator powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

Zero CO₂

Depends where the hydrogen came from.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Depends where the hydrogen came from.

#This is true,

but after a while I think going down the chain gets a bit silly.

Did the man who worked in the factory have a metal buckle in his belt ?
Did he wear a ring in his ear or have nails in hios boots?

Did the canteen chef who made his dinner use a metal saucepan?
And did he stir it with a metal spoon or a wooden one ?

When the company boss watched the main news of the day on TV does his TV use a metal antenna ?

 

Where does it end ?

Edited March 3, 2021 by studiot

[MigL]

On 3/1/2021 at 7:50 PM, Ken Fabian said:

including the FF's used to refine FF's, not just fuel used directly in the vehicle,

That is very observant, but you may be taking the wrong view, Ken.

What we call 'fossil fuels' don't just produce fuel.
They produce all the plastics and synthetic products that make modern life 'modern'.
We just don't see them as bad, because the carbon is 'trapped' in the product, while the actual fuels produced, release CO₂ on burning.

The amount of plastic and composites used in a modern EV, as opposed to the metal used in a 'big ol' Mercedes' might mean that more 'fossil fuels' are used for actual manufacturing. So fred may be right about that aspect.

As an example ...

Butene is an organic fuel distilled from 'fossil fuels' in the same partal distillation process that results in gasoline that fuels cars.
Yet yesterday I personally reacted Butene with Phosphine at high pressure and temperature in an autoclave, then vented and distilled off any remaining Phosphine/Butene to yield high purity tri-Butyl Phosphine.

This pyrophoric liquid is used in the production of Tamilflu, an anti-viral that was in big demand during the 'bird' flu epidemic a decade ago.

Edited March 3, 2021 by MigL

[Ken Fabian]

8 hours ago, fred2014 said:

question: Which generates the most CO2 ?

a) Running a current big mercedes diesel car

b) Running a current tesla electric vehicle

Multiple studies say ICE cars generate more CO2 even where EV's are charged exclusively using FF produced electricity. EV's make even less when charged with low emissions energy. Manufacture the EV's where the grids are low emissions and less emissions are used making them; as the proportion of low emissions energy grows the amount that EV's produce goes down.

Battery use is growing rapidly and what they do, they do successfully and cost effectively, from EV's to home solar to grid - and at this point I don't see any credible alternatives. And I don't see the transition to very low/below zero emissions as something optional.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Storing energy may be useful one day, let's not confuse propoganda with information...

Storing energy is already useful. Electricity grids around the world are getting cost effective benefits already, as do householders who have invested in them to complement solar on rooftops. Plans for complementing growth of solar and wind in Australia with new build gas are being set aside in favour of batteries - with energy companies, not government policy, driving take-up.

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

but after a while I think going down the chain gets a bit silly.

Did the man who worked in the factory have a metal buckle in his belt ?
Did he wear a ring in his ear or have nails in hios boots?

Did the canteen chef who made his dinner use a metal saucepan?
And did he stir it with a metal spoon or a wooden one ?

When the company boss watched the main news of the day on TV does his TV use a metal antenna ?

 

Where does it end ?

How Hydrogen is produced, as with batteries and the emissions in FF production chains as well as end use surely does count. Ultimately all manufacturing must be included, not by counting the nails in people's boots but through counting the emissions from the industries involved in the manufacture and supply of all their products. Make the energy systems low emissions and everything manufactured with it will have low emissions.

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

What we call 'fossil fuels' don't just produce fuel.
The produce all the plastics and synthetic products that make modern life 'modern'.
We just don't see them as bad, because the carbon is 'trapped' in the product, while the actual fuels produced, release CO₂ on burning.

The amount of plastic and composites used in a modern EV, as opposed to the metal used in a 'big ol' Mercedes' might mean that more 'fossil fuels' are used for actual manufacturing. So fred may be right about that aspect.

I don't know that an EV would have more of those materials than any fossil fuel burner. I would say that that they aren't fossil fuels.

They do offer some potential for recycling... except most recycling is 'downcycling' that uses materials at lesser quality, perhaps a few times at best. Burning them as the ultimate means of disposal - using plastics as fuel, that displaces other fossil fuels - is quite common too, so some portion of those materials do end up as fossil fuels. My understanding is burning waste oil as fuel is the most common fate of lubricant oils too - although re-refining and re-use is becoming more common. I don't see that as anything but an interim means to reduce overall harms without offering any end solution. The ultimate solution will be in better materials in "Cradle to Cradle"* style, where technical materials are selected for being able to be recycled back to original "virgin" quality, within waste management systems that actually do that - or else use biological materials (in "Cradle to Cradle"* style) that are made to fully decompose back to reusable biological nutrients.

But this problem of plastics use and disposal is society and economy wide, whether we consider emissions or not. But we do need to consider emissions.

* Cradle to Cradle concept is the brainchild of Braungart and McDonough. Their "Waste Equals Food" Doco is worth a look IMO.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Ken Fabian

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Depends where the hydrogen came from.

If we totally committed to a hydrogen powered civilisation, I think it could all come from renewable energy (even with the efficiency problem), and one step closer to a Dyson sphere. 

13 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Storing energy is already useful. Electricity grids around the world are getting cost effective benefits already, as do householders who have invested in them to complement solar on rooftops. Plans for complementing growth of solar and wind in Australia with new build gas are being set aside in favour of batteries - with energy companies, not government policy, driving take-up.

Indeed, I should have added a 🙄.

[MigL]

Maybe I didn't make my point very clear, Ken.

What you call 'fossil fuels' are actually the source of many more products that are part of modern life. 
Plastics being the best known example.

They are not only used as CO₂ liberating fuels.

If you want to consider all associated industry into a product's carbon footprint, are you also willing to consider the added energy/costs of synthesizing raw materials that were previously obtained from 'fossil fuels' due to any future ban ?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If we totally committed to a hydrogen powered civilisation, I think it could all come from renewable energy

Or not, which is the issue.

Hydrogen is a transfer medium, not a source, so it's a separate question. You could commit to hydrogen but burn coal to make it.

This is similar to using copper wires to transmit electricity vs some other conductor. Neither one is inherently green or not green. The source needs to be green.

 

Quote

(even with the efficiency problem)

Hydrogen efficiency or renewable efficiency?

[studiot]

15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Storing energy is already useful.

Indeed so.

But there are pitfalls as with anything in this world.

Storage as heat or electricity can only ever be short term as both dissipate with time and require auxiliary apparatus which is not self contained to distribute.

Long term storage will require other methods (storage as some form of potential energy) into the forseeable future.

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Or not, which is the issue.

Hydrogen is a transfer medium, not a source, so it's a separate question. Like saying that using copper wires to transmit electricity vs some other conductor. Neither one is inherently green or not green.

 

Hydrogen efficiency or renewable efficiency?

A large enough solar farm would negate both and not significantly impinge on our ability to farm food.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A large enough solar farm would negate both and not significantly impinge on our ability to farm food

And how would you get the output from your solar farm to the large, energy hungry, agricultural machinery of today ?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

And how would you get the output from your solar farm to the large, energy hungry, agricultural machinery of today ?

I remember an article that suggested a solar farm that could, theoretically, feed our energy needs is a ridiculously small area; wouldn't big enough, do?

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A large enough solar farm would negate both and not significantly impinge on our ability to farm food.

True, but I didn't say anything about farming. Nor does it seem to address the points I brought up. (one being that you have to build the solar (or wind) farm. That's the key. Whether or not you use hydrogen is completely beside this point)

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I remember an article that suggested a solar farm that could, theoretically, feed our energy needs is a ridiculously small area; wouldn't big enough, do?

I don't see however big or small the solar farm is offers any answer at all to my question which was

How do you get the solar generated electricity to a machine that is out in the fields where there are no electric points ?

This is something farm machinery has in common with the excavator I linked to.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't see however big or small the solar farm is offers any answer at all to my question which was

How do you get the solar generated electricity to a machine that is out in the fields where there are no electric points ?

This is something farm machinery has in common with the excavator I linked to.

Hydrogen is one possibility. Local generation is another.

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Hydrogen is one possibility. Local generation is another.

And just how does the farmer store this electricity ?

 

I'm not saying that hydrogen is the be-all and end-all.

We need multiple solutions to multiple problems and situations.

According to the UK government calculator (MCS) 29% of solar is generated during the 6 months Oct - March and 71% in Apr - Sep , just the time the farmer will be growning crops, not ploughing.

Edited March 4, 2021 by studiot

[CharonY]

 

20 hours ago, MigL said:

hey produce all the plastics and synthetic products that make modern life 'modern'.
We just don't see them as bad, because the carbon is 'trapped' in the product, while the actual fuels produced, release CO₂ on burning.

The amount of plastic and composites used in a modern EV, as opposed to the metal used in a 'big ol' Mercedes' might mean that more 'fossil fuels' are used for actual manufacturing. So fred may be right about that aspect.

There is a lot of lit out there, and I am not sure what the latest info is. However, I *think* that most recent life cycle assessment (i.e. from production until end of life) seem still to favour electric vehicles, especially if the electricity is produced using with low carbon emission. However there are are also studies with different conclusion, and the difference is down to which assumptions are being made. For example, if batteries are made in countries where electricity is mostly generated from coal, then the lifetime emission of electrical cars is at least close to hybrids. Conversely, if manufactured in areas with a high proportion of low carbon electricity, it would be much lower. Also, the longer electrical cars operate, the lower their lifetime footprint becomes over their fossil fuel counterparts. While a new electric car has a higher carbon footprint for production, estimates indicate that a low-capacity EV would reduce carbon emission compared to combustion engines after about 2 years of operations (again depending on how electricity is being produced).

So if there is an overall strategy to decarbonize electrical production, it appears that the overall carbon footprint, even including the initially higher carbon cost eventually pays off. Conversely, if electricity is produced mostly via coal and electrical cars are rapidly replaced by new models (within 4 years) then lifecycle emission of EVs may be similar or worse than combustion cars. In other words, the overall decarbonization strategy is a key element in deciding what system is ultimately better.

 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

According to the UK government calculator (MCS) 29% of solar is generated during the 6 months Oct - March and 71% in Apr - Sep , just the time the farmer will be growning crops, not ploughing.

Plouging generaly involves a single pass of each portion of land; two, if you are harrowing; a third pass for planting.

During the March to September interval there are multiple passes with weedkillers, pest killers and fertilisers. Then comes the harvesting. Combine harvesters use a bunch more fuel than tractors.

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, Area54 said:

a single pass of each portion of land

Don't you lime and fertilise in Gloucester ?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

And just how does the farmer store this electricity ?

That’s a separate problem. 
 

Hydrogen is one possibility. Batteries are another.

 

 

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s a separate problem. 
 

Hydrogen is one possibility. Batteries are another.

 

 

Indeed.

Another might be for the farmer to operate a biodigester and run his machinery on the gas generated in a gas engine.

The gas engine in turn might run a generator in the same way the railways found diesel-electric locomotive beneficial.

(A number of farmers did exactly this in WWII, when they couldn't get oil).

 

My point is, and always was, there are many competing factors and courses of action.
Good engineering is about selecting the best or most appropriate given the constraints, which can include CO₂ emissions.

Edited March 4, 2021 by studiot

[Ken Fabian]

Battery operated tractors are already on the way. Hydrogen will struggle for lack of supply infrastructure but may gain traction over time as industrial use of H2 grows - it is needed for low emissions iron and steel and may be a way to convert gas plant used as backup to wind and solar to zero emissions and beat batteries for long, deep storage.

Right now it would be possible to recharge a tractor from local solar but fast charging a big machine in a time of heavy use might be better with grid connection. A dilemma that those machines may get only weeks of use per year but then run 24/7 when used, however there are credible proposals to run a complementary power supply vehicle alongside.

Plenty of lower hanging fruit for going electric than grain harvesters - a lot of higher priorities to deal with first, during which much will be learned.

Possibly we will see farm scale H2 production emerge - it could be used for producing low emissions Nitrogen fertilisers on site as well, but battery electric can work right now. For small, intensive farming there are also small tractors with long electricity leads - not even new tech, that.

The future of tractors -

John Deere's Joker is a fully autonomous electric tractor with articulated steering and a tracked single axle.

John Deere is apparently very committed and optimistic about battery electric tractors. And automation.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Ken Fabian