.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

18 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I have a close friend who is an engineer in the battery industry for a major battery manufacturer, and he tells me privately that cobalt is a necessity for EV's going forward...keeps the batteries from catching on fire, very useful contribution, don't you think?

Cobalt and nickel are necessary for Some battery chemistries, including the currently dominant NCM.  The are not needed for LFP. Tesla is building its lower-end "standard range" versions of the Model 3 and Model Y in China using LFP.

The other main constraints are lithium and copper. Their prices will go up, and then new sources will be opened up and prices will go back down. This is no different than what happens with Oil. Lithium and copper are both relatively abundant.

Going forward, we will see stationary batteries shift to chemistries that use much cheaper materials on a $/kWh basis, because nobody cares about kg/kWh or L/kWh in a stationary battery. This will free up the lithium and copper going into those big batteries. If this is not enough to drive down the prices, then the high prices will drive recycling, especially of those old stationary batteries but also of the EV batteries.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

21 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

When the EV production breaks into the hundreds of millions, then you will see something big happen to the prices....maybe even before that.

The world currently produces about 92 million vehicles of all types per year. The industry will not make "hundreds of millions" of EVs per year. There are currently about 1.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide. The cobalt and nickel in those batteries is not consumed. By the time EVs become an appreciable percentage of the vehicles, those batteries will be recycled if the price get high enough. The recycling operation will also recover the lithium and copper as (barely-profitable) side-streams.  Thus, the total amount of new mining will top out at the rate needed for worldwide fleet increase plus recycling losses.

All of that assumes no advances in battery technology. But battery cost has come down by 80% in the last ten years, and there is a tremendous amount of ongoing research, especially in reduction of material cost. I am quite skeptical of most of the research announcements (there are several each week), but surely there will be a few nuggets in this huge pile of manure.

If you want to worry about cobalt demand, you should probably look at motors and generators instead of batteries. Especially EV motors and wind turbines, but those are not the only ones. My personal guess is that as the price of cobalt rises, we will see a shift away from permanent magnet motors to less-capable induction motors that do not use cobalt. The cost tradeoff depends on the cost of cobalt relative to the cost of electricity. For wind generators, this translates to the generator consuming some of its own power, so the same blade diameter provides less net electricity: it's all a cost tradeoff. For EVs, the less-capable motor will consume more energy to do the same job, so the EV will need a bigger battery, but if the battery is sufficiently cheap, this is also a good tradeoff. Just like ICE, high-performance cars will use more expensive motors and cost a lot more, while the average commuter car will be a lot cheaper.

[turbguy + 1,543]

5 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The world currently produces about 92 million vehicles of all types per year. The industry will not make "hundreds of millions" of EVs per year. There are currently about 1.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide. The cobalt and nickel in those batteries is not consumed. By the time EVs become an appreciable percentage of the vehicles, those batteries will be recycled if the price get high enough. The recycling operation will also recover the lithium and copper as (barely-profitable) side-streams.  Thus, the total amount of new mining will top out at the rate needed for worldwide fleet increase plus recycling losses.

All of that assumes no advances in battery technology. But battery cost has come down by 80% in the last ten years, and there is a tremendous amount of ongoing research, especially in reduction of material cost. I am quite skeptical of most of the research announcements (there are several each week), but surely there will be a few nuggets in this huge pile of manure.

If you want to worry about cobalt demand, you should probably look at motors and generators instead of batteries. Especially EV motors and wind turbines, but those are not the only ones. My personal guess is that as the price of cobalt rises, we will see a shift away from permanent magnet motors to less-capable induction motors that do not use cobalt. The cost tradeoff depends on the cost of cobalt relative to the cost of electricity. For wind generators, this translates to the generator consuming some of its own power, so the same blade diameter provides less net electricity: it's all a cost tradeoff. For EVs, the less-capable motor will consume more energy to do the same job, so the EV will need a bigger battery, but if the battery is sufficiently cheap, this is also a good tradeoff. Just like ICE, high-performance cars will use more expensive motors and cost a lot more, while the average commuter car will be a lot cheaper.

I beleive DFIG's are the predominant type used in modern Wind Turbines rather than permanent magnet generators these days.  They don't need (much) cobalt.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I beleive DFIG's are the predominant type used in modern Wind Turbines rather than permanent magnet generators these days.  They don't need (much) cobalt.

Sorry, I was behind the  times.  This means the cobalt from the early-generation machines can be recovered and recycled, so all of the cobalt needed for wind turbines has already been mined.

[turbguy + 1,543]

33 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, I was behind the  times.  This means the cobalt from the early-generation machines can be recovered and recycled, so all of the cobalt needed for wind turbines has already been mined.

Maybe not for direct drive machines.  The elimination of the gearbox is a reliability plus, but the generators got lotsa PM poles, and begin to look like hydro-generators turned on their sides, like so...

The yaw bearings gotta be impressive!

Edited March 18, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

On 3/17/2021 at 11:31 PM, waltz said:

Ecocharger, so correct and that will not be changing anytime soon.  Vehicles will be getting more expensive for a myriad of reasons.

Can’t seem to get links correct but you can google, estimates say electronics account for 40% of the cost of a new car.  Also, tire and brake wear are said to be higher than current EU tailpipe emissions allowed to be.  We have a shortage of chips (probably short term), lack of raw materials for exponential battery growth (though that is what is desired by some) and are arriving at a point where a non-regulated input (clearly will “have to change” at some point) is worse than emissions from an ICE vehicle.

         waltz 

 

So accurate, and going forward when there is a ramp-up to tens or hundreds of millions of EV's in production, the scarce materials will experience exponential price increases. The EV will always be a rich man's vehicle, and if ICE's are banned by decree, the poor will just do without.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/EVs-Overrated-As-Climate-Game-Changers-Expert.html

Edited March 19, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Cobalt and nickel are necessary for Some battery chemistries, including the currently dominant NCM.  The are not needed for LFP. Tesla is building its lower-end "standard range" versions of the Model 3 and Model Y in China using LFP.

The other main constraints are lithium and copper. Their prices will go up, and then new sources will be opened up and prices will go back down. This is no different than what happens with Oil. Lithium and copper are both relatively abundant.

Going forward, we will see stationary batteries shift to chemistries that use much cheaper materials on a $/kWh basis, because nobody cares about kg/kWh or L/kWh in a stationary battery. This will free up the lithium and copper going into those big batteries. If this is not enough to drive down the prices, then the high prices will drive recycling, especially of those old stationary batteries but also of the EV batteries.

No, lithium and copper are expensive and dirty to produce, you will see less productive mines being used but the prices will escalate exponentially IF the EV production gets into the tens of millions.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

22 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The world currently produces about 92 million vehicles of all types per year. The industry will not make "hundreds of millions" of EVs per year. There are currently about 1.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide. The cobalt and nickel in those batteries is not consumed. By the time EVs become an appreciable percentage of the vehicles, those batteries will be recycled if the price get high enough. The recycling operation will also recover the lithium and copper as (barely-profitable) side-streams.  Thus, the total amount of new mining will top out at the rate needed for worldwide fleet increase plus recycling losses.

All of that assumes no advances in battery technology. But battery cost has come down by 80% in the last ten years, and there is a tremendous amount of ongoing research, especially in reduction of material cost. I am quite skeptical of most of the research announcements (there are several each week), but surely there will be a few nuggets in this huge pile of manure.

If you want to worry about cobalt demand, you should probably look at motors and generators instead of batteries. Especially EV motors and wind turbines, but those are not the only ones. My personal guess is that as the price of cobalt rises, we will see a shift away from permanent magnet motors to less-capable induction motors that do not use cobalt. The cost tradeoff depends on the cost of cobalt relative to the cost of electricity. For wind generators, this translates to the generator consuming some of its own power, so the same blade diameter provides less net electricity: it's all a cost tradeoff. For EVs, the less-capable motor will consume more energy to do the same job, so the EV will need a bigger battery, but if the battery is sufficiently cheap, this is also a good tradeoff. Just like ICE, high-performance cars will use more expensive motors and cost a lot more, while the average commuter car will be a lot cheaper.

The EV industry will have to produce hundreds of millions of vehicles to replace the current stock of ICE's, of course. That creates a huge burden of demand for scarce minerals.

And all for no reason,

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/EVs-Overrated-As-Climate-Game-Changers-Expert.html

Edited March 19, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

40 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The EV industry will have to produce hundreds of millions of vehicles to replace the current stock of ICR's, of course. That creates a huge burden of demand for scarce minerals.

And all for no reason,

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/EVs-Overrated-As-Climate-Game-Changers-Expert.html

Let's take this to a new thread in the "renewables" section. It's off-topic for the Texas blackout fiasco.

Your quoted article is a three-paragraph regurgitation of decade-old and mostly irrelevant assertions by an oil-industry apologist speaking at a conservative think tank, with no references and no new data.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Turbguy

As staunchly anti wind power as I am, the ongoing engineering feats being developed in that field are simply astounding.

Thanks for posting that pic.

 

Somewhat related to the Texas power shutdown, there is an alarming shortage of plastics and feedstock - worldwide - due to the shut down of the Texas petchem plants.

The short supply of medical gowns, test tubes, face shields, smart phone cases and more are cropping up as the ongoing Covid testing continues apace.

Just as the fact that the high in-demand hand sanitizers are largely made from isopropyl alcohol (propene and water), our modern world reliance upon hydrocarbons is so vast that - like electricity - no one pays attention until it is just not available.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Let's take this to a new thread in the "renewables" section. It's off-topic for the Texas blackout fiasco.

Your quoted article is a three-paragraph regurgitation of decade-old and mostly irrelevant assertions by an oil-industry apologist speaking at a conservative think tank, with no references and no new data.

We can start posting in the renewables section but never underestimate Bjorn Lomborg.

The New York Times-bestselling "skeptical environmentalist" argues that panic over climate change is causing more harm than good

 

Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Artic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.

 

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.

 

False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong -- and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.

https://lomborg.com/news?language[]=9 Enlighten yourself.  He is the foremost expert in wise environmental policies that actually make sense. I am not saying he is right on everything though. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

20 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Let's take this to a new thread in the "renewables" section. It's off-topic for the Texas blackout fiasco.

Your quoted article is a three-paragraph regurgitation of decade-old and mostly irrelevant assertions by an oil-industry apologist speaking at a conservative think tank, with no references and no new data.

It was never more relevant than now....and I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject, the carbon footprint of the EV vehicles is probably larger than for the ICE vehicles. That makes the EV revolution an irrelevancy.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

3 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Turbguy

As staunchly anti wind power as I am, the ongoing engineering feats being developed in that field are simply astounding.

Thanks for posting that pic.

 

Somewhat related to the Texas power shutdown, there is an alarming shortage of plastics and feedstock - worldwide - due to the shut down of the Texas petchem plants.

The short supply of medical gowns, test tubes, face shields, smart phone cases and more are cropping up as the ongoing Covid testing continues apace.

Just as the fact that the high in-demand hand sanitizers are largely made from isopropyl alcohol (propene and water), our modern world reliance upon hydrocarbons is so vast that - like electricity - no one pays attention until it is just not available.

The list of products which rely upon oil supplies is astounding. I get the feeling that the anti-oil propagandists are usually the ones who drive the older polluting vehicles and complain about them at the same time. I have a cousin in that boat.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Holy smokes!

It turns out that 35 major natural gas facilities had their electricity turned off in the early stages of the Texas storm because they hadn't filled in some sort of paperwork that put them on the critical infrastructure list. The usually-full Kinder-Morgan, Targa and Diamondback pipelines were starved for natural gas to deliver to the power plants. 

Winterizing wouldn't have done much to fix this mess. This was a common sense issue. 

Unbelievable!

But on the flip side, it's an easy fix. 

 

[surrept33 + 609]

30 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It was never more relevant than now....and I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject, the carbon footprint of the EV vehicles is probably larger than for the ICR vehicles. That makes the EV revolution an irrelevancy.

It obviously depends. Are we talking about the a ICE engine that that the Obama administration had originally pushed for in terms of tougher MPG standards and power plants subject to the Clean Power Plan? 

Are we talking about BEV cars where the battery was originally produced in a grid with say, wind or coal and the subsequent recharges of the battery are from a grid of solar or wind?  

Obviously these can vary. The problem is that for for a long time, there was either denial that risk caused by greenhouse gasses were a problem, or there was lobbying by the oil/gas industry. These days, at least the governmental affairs divisions of most large energy companies have more or less flipped their position. It's just smart business.

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, surrept33 said:

It obviously depends. Are we talking about the a ICE engine that that the Obama administration had originally pushed for in terms of tougher MPG standards and power plants subject to the Clean Power Plan? 

Are we talking about BEV cars where the battery was originally produced in a grid with say, wind or coal and the subsequent recharges of the battery are from a grid of solar or wind?  

Obviously these can vary. The problem is that for for a long time, there was either denial that risk caused by greenhouse gasses were a problem, or there was lobbying by the oil/gas industry. These days, at least the governmental affairs divisions of most large energy companies have more or less flipped their position. It's just smart business.

 

 

CO2 is not the major issue. Real pollution from all related sources is. Nice graphs though. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

Getting closer to the answer(s).  Looks like we have a "failure to communicate".

"It's too early to draw specific conclusions other than to realize the co-dependence of electricity and natural gas systems," Garza, now a senior fellow at the think tank R Street, said"  

DUH!

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Former-ERCOT-monitor-suggests-gas-shortages-16035746.php

Then:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/freeze-risk-texas-natural-gas-supply-system-power-16020457.php#photo-20733693

“Everybody’s trying to throw ERCOT, wind and power plants under the bus, but it’s the gas system that primarily failed us,” said Michael Webber, an energy resources professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “And the gas system is really a Railroad Commission thing.”

The Railroad Commission — composed of three elected officials who receive large contributions from the oil and gas industry — didn’t mandate winterization to prevent oil and gas wells from freezing, require backup power for critical equipment or even ensure that producers and pipeline operators sought priority status for power during emergency outages.

In legislative hearings dissecting the power crisis, Christi Craddick, a Republican who chairs the Railroad Commission, said she was unaware that natural gas producers, like hospitals and other essential services, could seek exemptions from rolling outages — exemptions that might have kept more gas flowing to power plants.

“I didn't know that was an opportunity,” Craddick told lawmakers. “We'd never been told that as an agency, to my knowledge. We didn't have anything on our website. And really it's a function of working with those energy companies and ERCOT to put those people as priority.”

"Neither ERCOT nor the Railroad Commission would say whether or how the two groups collaborate".

Then:  OOPS!  what happened here?

https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/resources/pubs/news/2019/PUCTX-INFR-LTR-RRC-PUC-Summer2019-electric-reliability-letter.pdf

And look, revised March 2021!

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/key_documents_lists/174326/Final_-_pdf_-_App_for_gas_pipeline_load_v020320.pdf

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

16 hours ago, surrept33 said:

It obviously depends. Are we talking about the a ICE engine that that the Obama administration had originally pushed for in terms of tougher MPG standards and power plants subject to the Clean Power Plan? 

Are we talking about BEV cars where the battery was originally produced in a grid with say, wind or coal and the subsequent recharges of the battery are from a grid of solar or wind?  

Obviously these can vary. The problem is that for for a long time, there was either denial that risk caused by greenhouse gasses were a problem, or there was lobbying by the oil/gas industry. These days, at least the governmental affairs divisions of most large energy companies have more or less flipped their position. It's just smart business.

 

 

Of course it depends on whether or not coal or natural gas is used to provide the electricity, that is the point. It usually IS coal or NG. Coal is used to provide and to manufacture steel components. This is all basic stuff. Mining lithium and copper is a dirty, messy and expensive business requiring a lot of ICE equipment to carry it off. And it looks like the EV carbon footprint is probably larger than the ICE carbon footprint.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

21 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, I was behind the  times.  This means the cobalt from the early-generation machines can be recovered and recycled, so all of the cobalt needed for wind turbines has already been mined.

Elsewhere we saw @turbguy saying he was never climbing a wind tower again. The newest ones are approaching 300 meter towers. How convenient do you think it will be to recycle those 4 tons of rare earth elements from those whirligigs up there? Chop them down like trees? (Never mind that the pylons are by far the strongest component).

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

Getting closer to the answer(s).  Looks like we have a "failure to communicate".

"It's too early to draw specific conclusions other than to realize the co-dependence of electricity and natural gas systems," Garza, now a senior fellow at the think tank R Street, said"  

DUH!

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Former-ERCOT-monitor-suggests-gas-shortages-16035746.php

Then:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/freeze-risk-texas-natural-gas-supply-system-power-16020457.php#photo-20733693

“Everybody’s trying to throw ERCOT, wind and power plants under the bus, but it’s the gas system that primarily failed us,” said Michael Webber, an energy resources professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “And the gas system is really a Railroad Commission thing.”

The Railroad Commission — composed of three elected officials who receive large contributions from the oil and gas industry — didn’t mandate winterization to prevent oil and gas wells from freezing, require backup power for critical equipment or even ensure that producers and pipeline operators sought priority status for power during emergency outages.

In legislative hearings dissecting the power crisis, Christi Craddick, a Republican who chairs the Railroad Commission, said she was unaware that natural gas producers, like hospitals and other essential services, could seek exemptions from rolling outages — exemptions that might have kept more gas flowing to power plants.

“I didn't know that was an opportunity,” Craddick told lawmakers. “We'd never been told that as an agency, to my knowledge. We didn't have anything on our website. And really it's a function of working with those energy companies and ERCOT to put those people as priority.”

"Neither ERCOT nor the Railroad Commission would say whether or how the two groups collaborate".

Then:  OOPS!  what happened here?

https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/resources/pubs/news/2019/PUCTX-INFR-LTR-RRC-PUC-Summer2019-electric-reliability-letter.pdf

And look, revised March 2021!

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/key_documents_lists/174326/Final_-_pdf_-_App_for_gas_pipeline_load_v020320.pdf

 

Let's not forget one simple fact. For decades gas producers were able to host backup generators that ran, wait for it… on natural gas! But then, not ERCOT not the RRC but the stinking EPA mandated that that was a bad thing and so ordered that all that intelligent usage of natural gas generators to ensure the supply of natural gas be replaced by nice clean electricity, largely supplied by wind power so everyone gets to virtue signal their green bona fides. And as Paul Harvey used to say, "That's the rest of the story".

[turbguy + 1,543]

22 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Elsewhere we saw @turbguy saying he was never climbing a wind tower again. The newest ones are approaching 300 meter towers. How convenient do you think it will be to recycle those 4 tons of rare earth elements from those whirligigs up there? Chop them down like trees? (Never mind that the pylons are by far the strongest component).

Depending on the design of the generator used in wind turbines, there can be a lot, or a little REE in the nacelle.

Anyway, you take them down the same way they put them up, only a little faster.  A high, heavy lift crane with a oversize load trailer to haul away the pieces/parts.  Most current regs require bonding for removal/site remediation, similar to nucs.  Not to say it's cheap, particularly if offshore!

What would more likely happen (IMO) is an entirely new nacelle goes up instead, with a High Temperature Superconducting Generator (yup, one exists, don't ask about the price, or the refrigerator).

Edited March 19, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,543]

22 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Let's not forget one simple fact. For decades gas producers were able to host backup generators that ran, wait for it… on natural gas! But then, not ERCOT not the RRC but the stinking EPA mandated that that was a bad thing and so ordered that all that intelligent usage of natural gas generators to ensure the supply of natural gas be replaced by nice clean electricity, largely supplied by wind power so everyone gets to virtue signal their green bona fides. And as Paul Harvey used to say, "That's the rest of the story".

Do you have a source for the EPA reg that caused a change in practice?  Seems like it might be an economic decision on the gas supplier as well...

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Do you have a source for the EPA reg that caused a change in practice?  Seems like it might be an economic decision on the gas supplier as well...

It was mentioned in several of the articles I linked to here. Considering the cost of a power drop out into the middle of nowhere, versus a genset, I know where I'd place my bet. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Depending on the design of the generator used in wind turbines, there can be a lot, or a little REE in the nacelle.

Anyway, you take them down the same way they put them up, only a little faster.  A high, heavy lift crane with a oversize load trailer to haul away the pieces/parts.  Most current regs require bonding for removal/site remediation, similar to nucs.  Not to say it's cheap, particularly if offshore!

What would more likely happen (IMO) is an entirely new nacelle goes up instead, with a High Temperature Superconducting Generator (yup, one exists, don't ask about the price, or the refrigerator).

The only time you would truy to recover the REE is is you are decomissioning the generator. You are going to need to get it down from the pylon at that time anyway. I assume this is done either when the entire tower reaches EOL or when the thing is being upgraded.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

CO2 is not the major issue. Real pollution from all related sources is. Nice graphs though. 

BANG!