Simple question: What is the expected impact in electricity Demand when EV deployment exceeds 10%

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Picture of what? The paper concludes with 

"Whether these effects will be detectable by observations and whether the Earth greening can affect other climatic processes (e.g., extreme events) remain to be investigated."

They aren't even sure if the effect will be significant enough to be observed.

And much of the greening is not attributed to higher CO2:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

Intensive agricultural practices in turn depend on the higher levels of CO2, so you are just reinforcing the point made above, that increases in atmospheric CO2 have fueled the greening of the earth and mitigated global warming.

I guess you missed the other point, the point about human planting of forestation projects in China and India is offset by loss of forest in Brazil and Indonesia, so no net change. The net increase in greening must be due to CO2 changes.

That is consistent with the discoveries of a lack of significant correlation between CO2 levels and earth temperature, and gives an organic explanation for that relationship. 

Again, here is the conclusion of this strong international team of scientists,

 " Changes in these biophysical factors can strongly affect the radiometric land surface temperature (LST)."

That's right "strongly". As in observations.

Oh, and how is your shopping expedition for a new EV coming along? Any luck?

Don't worry, just keep that CO2 pumping out of your BMW, and you will be doing your part in the fight against global warming.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I would not put to much effort into the discussion of EV's making it to mainstream, this thread deals to what could be and now what is...18 months from now EV's will repeat history..a dead issue, for now the mfg's are placating the current crowd...A little pablum goes along way with the EV crowd.

Yep, 18 months from now (i.e., Q4 2022) Tesla will have had Giga Berlin and Giga Texas up and running for a year and they will be in full production, more than doubling Tesla's total production rate and continuing to ramp up additional production lines, with a probable total production in 2022 of 2.5 million vehicles. Meanwhile, VW may have gotten it's act together by but their dealerships will still be pushing back then, and all of the other manufacturers will still be talking mostly about new models to be delivered "real soon now". So yes, EVs will repeat the history of Tesla's gradual takeover. Their only serious competition is in China, but the Chinese manufacturers are mostly serving the low-end of the Chinese market. When the Chinese start selling low-end to the rest of the world, it will "repeat history" of the takeover of the markets by the Japanese in the 1970's. Paradoxically, the built-in-China versions of the Tesla Model 3 are currently the best-selling EVs in China, but they are sold as high-end "big" cars there.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

So now there is another potential supply bottleneck emerging in the EV battery manufacture, one which shares a demand from the ICE sector, and whose price is already running up in the markets today....palladium.

New applications of palladium in high performance battery use for EV, to improve power to weight ratios, makes palladium the most hotly chased commodity for the new generations of EV batteries. And when palladium prices skyrocket, the price of EV's follow them up.

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/platinum-group-metals-take-another-step-closer-to-use-in-battery-electric-vehicles-2021-01-19

Russia and South Africa control 75% of palladium supplies. They will reap huge benefits going forward,

https://commodity.com/precious-metals/palladium/

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[-trance + 114]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

So now there is another potential supply bottleneck emerging in the EV battery manufacture, one which shares a demand from the ICE sector, and whose price is already running up in the markets today....palladium.

New applications of palladium in high performance battery use for EV, to improve power to weight ratios, makes palladium the most hotly chased commodity for the new generations of EV batteries. And when palladium prices skyrocket, the price of EV's follow them up.

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/platinum-group-metals-take-another-step-closer-to-use-in-battery-electric-vehicles-2021-01-19

EV's do not need catalytic converters so that frees up some palladium.  As noted, ICE cars require rare metals too.

Edited April 22, 2021 by -trance

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 minutes ago, -trance said:

EV's do not need catalytic converters so that frees up some palladium.  Yes, ICE cars require rare metals too...

The new generations of EV lithium batteries will require palladium in large quantities for high performance and to reduce weight of batteries for equivalent performance characteristics...check the link which I gave you above.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

22 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The new generations of EV lithium batteries will require palladium in large quantities for high performance and to reduce weight of batteries for equivalent performance characteristics...check the link above.

I know you don't understand this but there are a zillion different battery chemistries and claims. Research labs claiming breakthroughs are a dime a dozen. Just because a company that is in the business of selling platinum comes up with a claim that they have found a way to make a super useful chemistry using platinum is basically meaningless. It is clearly a press release designed to get funding. That is why there is so much discussion of the intellectual property ownership.

Further, nothing in that article says anything about the quantity of platinum required. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

35 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I know you don't understand this but there are a zillion different battery chemistries and claims. Research labs claiming breakthroughs are a dime a dozen. Just because a company that is in the business of selling platinum comes up with a claim that they have found a way to make a super useful chemistry using platinum is basically meaningless. It is clearly a press release designed to get funding. That is why there is so much discussion of the intellectual property ownership.

Further, nothing in that article says anything about the quantity of platinum required. 

It says that ALL lithium batteries could be enhanced in a major way, and reduce the weight of batteries, an essential goal.

Come on, Jay, you desperately NEED this upgrade to make batteries competitive. You know it.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

It says that ALL lithium batteries could be enhanced in a major way, and reduce the weight of batteries, an essential goal.

Come on, Jay, you desperately NEED this upgrade to make batteries competitive. You know it.

No, they say there is the *potential* for application to current chemistries. How would I or anyone else possibly know that it is needed just because some company trying to raise money makes a vague claim with no quantifiable specifics whatsoever.  Are you really that gullible?

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

No, they say there is the *potential* for application to current chemistries. How would I or anyone else possibly know that it is needed just because some company trying to raise money makes a vague claim with no quantifiable specifics whatsoever.  Are you really that gullible?

No, they say applicable to ALL lithium batteries in order to enhance performance and REDUCE WEIGHT.  You need that, Jay, and you know it.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

No, they say applicable to ALL lithium batteries in order to enhance performance and REDUCE WEIGHT.  You need that, Jay, and you know it.

Whatever.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

31 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Whatever.

Whatever, indeed. In a big way. Weight reduction is high on your battery list.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Whatever, indeed. In a big way. Weight reduction is high on your battery list.

How much weight reduction does the platinum produce? The article does not say.

In regard to Trance's comment above, how do you know an EV battery will require more platinum than is used in a catalytic converter? If it is the same amount or less then platinum does not play anymore of a bottleneck with EV than it does with ICE. 

You really are just showing how gullible you are as you are again making assertions about a technology for which you have no details other than someone's vague claim.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

So now there is another potential supply bottleneck emerging in the EV battery manufacture, one which shares a demand from the ICE sector, and whose price is already running up in the markets today....palladium.

New applications of palladium in high performance battery use for EV, to improve power to weight ratios, makes palladium the most hotly chased commodity for the new generations of EV batteries. And when palladium prices skyrocket, the price of EV's follow them up.

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/platinum-group-metals-take-another-step-closer-to-use-in-battery-electric-vehicles-2021-01-19

Russia and South Africa control 75% of palladium supplies. They will reap huge benefits going forward,

https://commodity.com/precious-metals/palladium/

The existing battery chemistries that do not use palladium are perfectly adequate for EV that outperfom ICE. Exotic new expensive batteries are not needed. However, there will be EV supercars that cost a whole lot more and provide better performnce by some metric, just as there are exotic super-expensive ICE supercars. Today's top-performing EVs already far outperform ICE cars of the equivalent cost in all metrics except range. I won't be buying an EV with a super-expensive battery. I also never bought a Lamborghini.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

How much weight reduction does the platinum produce? The article does not say.

In regard to Trance's comment above, how do you know an EV battery will require more platinum than is used in a catalytic converter? If it is the same amount or less then platinum does not play anymore of a bottleneck with EV than it does with ICE. 

You really are just showing how gullible you are as you are again making assertions about a technology for which you have no details other than someone's vague claim.

Vague is your middle name, Jay...welcome to the club.

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The existing battery chemistries that do not use palladium are perfectly adequate for EV that outperfom ICE. Exotic new expensive batteries are not needed. However, there will be EV supercars that cost a whole lot more and provide better performnce by some metric, just as there are exotic super-expensive ICE supercars. Today's top-performing EVs already far outperform ICE cars of the equivalent cost in all metrics except range. I won't be buying an EV with a super-expensive battery. I also never bought a Lamborghini.

I know a guy who bought and drove a Lambo.  He sold it right after he took a test drive in a Tesla. 

Guess what he bought with the Lamdo dough...

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I know a guy who bought and drove a Lambo.  He sold it right after he took a test drive in a Tesla. 

Guess what he bought with the Lamdo dough...

Yes. Take a look at this set of drag races, Tesla Model S ($93,000) versus a $291,000 Lamborghini Aventador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_rbooeMcI

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Vague is your middle name, Jay...welcome to the club.

I accept your capitulation. Please do watch the Lambo video Dan posted above, you might learn something.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yes. Take a look at this set of drag races, Tesla Model S ($93,000) versus a $291,000 Lamborghini Aventador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_rbooeMcI

Driver skill is important when you have a vehicle with clutches, vs. one where all you have to is is put your foot down.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I accept your capitulation. Please do watch the Lambo video Dan posted above, you might learn something.

There are hundreds of drag race videos of Teslas against ICE. Here is a Model 3 (mid-priced family sedan) against a Porsche 911 Carrera that costs about twice as much:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmiZ6ayCBB0

Tesla has not built an actual sports car since the original Roadster, so all of these videos are basically embarrassing for the ICEs even when they sometimes barely win. Tesla's new roadster comes out next year and they intend for it to be the fastest production car ever produced. We'll see.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

Driver skill is important when you have a vehicle with clutches, vs. one where all you have to is is put your foot down.

Yep. The drivers in most of these videos are enthusiasts that have been doing this for awhile, but the Tesla usually wins even when the ICE gets a perfect launch.  All of this is good clean fun, but the point here is that an EV has some intrinsic advantages that are very hard to overcome. Right now, the EV manufacturers are basically grossly over-designing the EVs, providing far more power and far more torque than most of us will ever need in a family sedan or crossover. This means that there is quite a bit of room for cost-cutting once they satisfy the high end and midrange demands.  I have no real need to out-accelerate an ICE muscle car or sports cars, but I can and I do, just for fun.  All of this cost headroom affects the rate at which EVs will achieve Ward's 10% ratio on the roads.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 4/18/2021 at 8:00 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

You continue to opine that cobalt is needed to reduce the risk of fire. This is incorrect. Cobalt-free LFP batteries are less fire-prone than cobalt-containing NCM batteries, and the lack of cobalt is one of the reasons. From the Wikipedia LFP battery article:

Please provide references for your assertion that batteries need cobalt for safety reasons. You or I can update the Wikipedia article if we have references.

NMC batteries require cobalt for fire reasons and longevity reasons.  Fire reasons: ALL batteries eventually die when they grow dendrites between layers in the cell causing a SHORT CIRCUIT.  When this happens in most batteries it just gets hot and battery dies.  Lithium when it gets hot, creates cell swelling which eventually bursts, which exposes the lithium to oxygen at which point it catches on fire unless it has a moderator such as Potassium and Iron.  In the case of Cobalt, Nickel chemistry, this modifier is not there even with the Cobalt.  What the Cobalt does is severely limit that dendrite growth as Cobalt is essentially a noble metal itself.  How TESLA etc get around said dendrite growth as the batteries age is they build fuses into EACH cell(expensive) so that even if one cell dies, the total amount of heat generated by JUST the battery self discharging is limited to a single cell instead of the WHOLE battery pack.  This still does not necessarily stop the fires, but with the addition of forced water cooling on modern battery packs... this becomes a much more limited issue.  You can get the same result with cheap materials such as magnesium instead of cobalt, but the battery does not last all that long, has inferior amperage(usually), voltage, range, etc.  These are the lithium batteries most commonly in your laptop, cordeless handtools, or dirt cheap electric vehicles or all those demo electric vehicles.  Reason for NMC is higher energy density, higher voltage, higher current.  Result, quicker charging, more range, etc, Magnesium based instead of Cobalt have roughly same discharge current, but charging is slower, life is shorter, and energy density is worse.  From what I have read nearly all electric vehicles produced to this date use the Magnesium chemistry with the exception being TESLA. 

LFP, has a gargantuan problem, you can't charge them below freezing or you will destroy them a couple charges, their charge rate compared to NMC is SLOW, VERY SLOW, and have roughly 60% the energy density of NMC.  They make Awesome battery banks for your home, boat, RV, but for a car?  Not so much.  Though I currently use them for my bike.  LFP is also cheaper currently.  When their cells die, they can make a whitish smoke, but it is not toxic and is not indicative of fire.  So, if you can guarantee they never get charged below freezing, then they are wonderful, otherwise you have to insulate the batteries, put in a heater, put in thermostats etc to keep them warm yadda yadda to get around the freezing issue which raises cost and you still have the major problems of SLOW to charge, low energy density.  So, short ranged commuter only cars is what LFP is good for.  DO remember you have to judge said cars not by their brand new shiny maximums, but after they have been used for a long time.  So, daily use of 50 miles to 100 miles is A-Ok for LFP in warm climates.  LFP do NOT like to be hot either so in a desert conditions, they are REALLY going to struggle. Need active cooling, but then so will NMC to an even greater extent for long life.  So far it seems to be an issue everyone has gotten around so, probably high temp is a non issue anymore. 

PS: All batteries like to only be discharged ~10% for maximum life, so just because Lithium can be discharged ~90% of its full capacity and do so more several times more than lead acid, if you limit total discharge to ~10% and only charge to ~85%, then LFP will last ~10,000 cycles at least and closer to 20,000 and so will high cobalt content Lithium chemistry batteries. There are other lithium cells like Lithium Titanate which can be 100% discharged well over 20,000 times, but have that massive problem that they are only 75% efficient(just as bad as lead acid), and require titanium, and only have an energy density roughly that of lead acid batteries, but can discharge/charge at 50C, which is utterly jaw dropping.  These are used in medical devices usually. 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I accept your capitulation. Please do watch the Lambo video Dan posted above, you might learn something.

I accept your capitulation, Jay. Vague is as vague does.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

NMC batteries require cobalt for fire reasons and longevity reasons.  Fire reasons: ALL batteries eventually die when they grow dendrites between layers in the cell causing a SHORT CIRCUIT.  When this happens in most batteries it just gets hot and battery dies.  Lithium when it gets hot, creates cell swelling which eventually bursts, which exposes the lithium to oxygen at which point it catches on fire unless it has a moderator such as Potassium and Iron.  In the case of Cobalt, Nickel chemistry, this modifier is not there even with the Cobalt.  What the Cobalt does is severely limit that dendrite growth as Cobalt is essentially a noble metal itself.  How TESLA etc get around said dendrite growth as the batteries age is they build fuses into EACH cell(expensive) so that even if one cell dies, the total amount of heat generated by JUST the battery self discharging is limited to a single cell instead of the WHOLE battery pack.  This still does not necessarily stop the fires, but with the addition of forced water cooling on modern battery packs... this becomes a much more limited issue.  You can get the same result with cheap materials such as magnesium instead of cobalt, but the battery does not last all that long, has inferior amperage(usually), voltage, range, etc.  These are the lithium batteries most commonly in your laptop, cordeless handtools, or dirt cheap electric vehicles or all those demo electric vehicles.  Reason for NMC is higher energy density, higher voltage, higher current.  Result, quicker charging, more range, etc, Magnesium based instead of Cobalt have roughly same discharge current, but charging is slower, life is shorter, and energy density is worse.  From what I have read nearly all electric vehicles produced to this date use the Magnesium chemistry with the exception being TESLA. 

LFP, has a gargantuan problem, you can't charge them below freezing or you will destroy them a couple charges, their charge rate compared to NMC is SLOW, VERY SLOW, and have roughly 60% the energy density of NMC.  They make Awesome battery banks for your home, boat, RV, but for a car?  Not so much.  Though I currently use them for my bike.  LFP is also cheaper currently.  When their cells die, they can make a whitish smoke, but it is not toxic and is not indicative of fire.  So, if you can guarantee they never get charged below freezing, then they are wonderful, otherwise you have to insulate the batteries, put in a heater, put in thermostats etc to keep them warm yadda yadda to get around the freezing issue which raises cost and you still have the major problems of SLOW to charge, low energy density.  So, short ranged commuter only cars is what LFP is good for.  DO remember you have to judge said cars not by their brand new shiny maximums, but after they have been used for a long time.  So, daily use of 50 miles to 100 miles is A-Ok for LFP in warm climates.  LFP do NOT like to be hot either so in a desert conditions, they are REALLY going to struggle. Need active cooling, but then so will NMC to an even greater extent for long life.  So far it seems to be an issue everyone has gotten around so, probably high temp is a non issue anymore. 

PS: All batteries like to only be discharged ~10% for maximum life, so just because Lithium can be discharged ~90% of its full capacity and do so more several times more than lead acid, if you limit total discharge to ~10% and only charge to ~85%, then LFP will last ~10,000 cycles at least and closer to 20,000 and so will high cobalt content Lithium chemistry batteries. There are other lithium cells like Lithium Titanate which can be 100% discharged well over 20,000 times, but have that massive problem that they are only 75% efficient(just as bad as lead acid), and require titanium, and only have an energy density roughly that of lead acid batteries, but can discharge/charge at 50C, which is utterly jaw dropping.  These are used in medical devices usually. 

Thanks for the overview. As you are almost certainly aware, there are also several other chemistries in various stages of R&D, with gee-whiz press releases weekly. I pretty much ignore them until they actually get deployed. The context of my post was that China is producing and deploying LFP batteries in massive quantities, and LFP has a much lower risk of fire than NCM even though LFP has no cobalt, thus directly refuting the repeated assertions made by @Ecocharger.  The LFPs are used in city busses and in tiny town cars. They are also used in the lower end options of the Chinese-built Tesla Model 3. You use them wherever you can accept the lower storage density and can work around the temperature quirks, which those vehicles do. You can also charge an LFP all the way to 100% repeatedly without reducing battery life, so the effective capacity is larger in daily use. You should only charge your fancy expensive Tesla Model Y up to about 80% on a daily basis, to that extra 15% is only useful for the first leg of a long trip.

[Boat + 1,315]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

NMC batteries require cobalt for fire reasons and longevity reasons.  Fire reasons: ALL batteries eventually die when they grow dendrites between layers in the cell causing a SHORT CIRCUIT.  When this happens in most batteries it just gets hot and battery dies.  Lithium when it gets hot, creates cell swelling which eventually bursts, which exposes the lithium to oxygen at which point it catches on fire unless it has a moderator such as Potassium and Iron.  In the case of Cobalt, Nickel chemistry, this modifier is not there even with the Cobalt.  What the Cobalt does is severely limit that dendrite growth as Cobalt is essentially a noble metal itself.  How TESLA etc get around said dendrite growth as the batteries age is they build fuses into EACH cell(expensive) so that even if one cell dies, the total amount of heat generated by JUST the battery self discharging is limited to a single cell instead of the WHOLE battery pack.  This still does not necessarily stop the fires, but with the addition of forced water cooling on modern battery packs... this becomes a much more limited issue.  You can get the same result with cheap materials such as magnesium instead of cobalt, but the battery does not last all that long, has inferior amperage(usually), voltage, range, etc.  These are the lithium batteries most commonly in your laptop, cordeless handtools, or dirt cheap electric vehicles or all those demo electric vehicles.  Reason for NMC is higher energy density, higher voltage, higher current.  Result, quicker charging, more range, etc, Magnesium based instead of Cobalt have roughly same discharge current, but charging is slower, life is shorter, and energy density is worse.  From what I have read nearly all electric vehicles produced to this date use the Magnesium chemistry with the exception being TESLA. 

LFP, has a gargantuan problem, you can't charge them below freezing or you will destroy them a couple charges, their charge rate compared to NMC is SLOW, VERY SLOW, and have roughly 60% the energy density of NMC.  They make Awesome battery banks for your home, boat, RV, but for a car?  Not so much.  Though I currently use them for my bike.  LFP is also cheaper currently.  When their cells die, they can make a whitish smoke, but it is not toxic and is not indicative of fire.  So, if you can guarantee they never get charged below freezing, then they are wonderful, otherwise you have to insulate the batteries, put in a heater, put in thermostats etc to keep them warm yadda yadda to get around the freezing issue which raises cost and you still have the major problems of SLOW to charge, low energy density.  So, short ranged commuter only cars is what LFP is good for.  DO remember you have to judge said cars not by their brand new shiny maximums, but after they have been used for a long time.  So, daily use of 50 miles to 100 miles is A-Ok for LFP in warm climates.  LFP do NOT like to be hot either so in a desert conditions, they are REALLY going to struggle. Need active cooling, but then so will NMC to an even greater extent for long life.  So far it seems to be an issue everyone has gotten around so, probably high temp is a non issue anymore. 

PS: All batteries like to only be discharged ~10% for maximum life, so just because Lithium can be discharged ~90% of its full capacity and do so more several times more than lead acid, if you limit total discharge to ~10% and only charge to ~85%, then LFP will last ~10,000 cycles at least and closer to 20,000 and so will high cobalt content Lithium chemistry batteries. There are other lithium cells like Lithium Titanate which can be 100% discharged well over 20,000 times, but have that massive problem that they are only 75% efficient(just as bad as lead acid), and require titanium, and only have an energy density roughly that of lead acid batteries, but can discharge/charge at 50C, which is utterly jaw dropping.  These are used in medical devices usually. 

I didn’t know you did accurate posts with good information. Congratulations 🎈 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

10 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Thanks for the overview. As you are almost certainly aware, there are also several other chemistries in various stages of R&D, with gee-whiz press releases weekly. I pretty much ignore them until they actually get deployed. The context of my post was that China is producing and deploying LFP batteries in massive quantities, and LFP has a much lower risk of fire than NCM even though LFP has no cobalt, thus directly refuting the repeated assertions made by @Ecocharger.  The LFPs are used in city busses and in tiny town cars. They are also used in the lower end options of the Chinese-built Tesla Model 3. You use them wherever you can accept the lower storage density and can work around the temperature quirks, which those vehicles do. You can also charge an LFP all the way to 100% repeatedly without reducing battery life, so the effective capacity is larger in daily use. You should only charge your fancy expensive Tesla Model Y up to about 80% on a daily basis, to that extra 15% is only useful for the first leg of a long trip.

Dan, my principal point was that market demand for cobalt would cause a rapid rise in the price of cobalt and consequent rise in battery/EV prices....that point still stands, as far as I can see from all the discussion here.

Let's not get side-tracked from the main issue. Although that is a standard tactic used by some climate alarmists.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ecocharger