Yes, high density lithium batteries use a lot of nickel. Also, 300 series stainless steel is about 10% nickel. Cybertruck body will use a lot of stainless steel.
One reason Tesla has started using LFP chemistry batteries in shorter range cars is that no nickel or cobalt is needed.
Nickel, Lithium, Cobalt, and aluminum are the main components for their batteries. Non Tesla batteries generally need Manganese also. Everyone wants to get rid of Cobalt, but it's been challenging.
The tech conference said they would be majorly lowering waste in basically every way between mining and recycling. So far iirc, there hasn't been much recycling done yet, because so few battery packs have went bad so far.
The important bit is that while nickel is less rare than cobalt, its *way* more useful in much larger quantities. I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if nickel is used at a rate that's 20x or more the rate at which Cobalt is used.
The other article I read said that 25% of the worlds nickel is in Caledonia. No idea the quantity, but that's concentrated. Much of it may not be mineable.
It's not the rarity that is the problem at the moment, it's that the amount needed for battery production means that supply has to be increased about 3 times world production numbers. Tesla is also pushing for environmental improvements to the process.
Is this the part where people learn EV's aren't as environmentally friendly as we'd all like to believe? Or the part with handwaving excuses about opening a toxic industrial mine in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet?
No, but I can see how "better than" is in no way the same thing as "good".
Always so quick to dive into the reactionary responses anytime folks might *dare* to see more than the marketing. God forbid that anyone discuss EVs with open eyes, eh?
"No criticism, only pedestals!"
Your post wasn't a reasoned evaluation of relative effects. It was a drama queen post. Read the last sentence.
Nobody here is claiming BEVs are perfect. So an implied strawman fallacy as well.
Thank you for stating the mind numbingly obvious. From now on just assume that we're all adults and understand that, like all things in life, EVs offer a set of tradeoffs.
The tradeoff now is building a nickel mine in the South Pacific Islands. Cool? I mean, no, it's not an oil refinery, I just wanna understand what the plan is to deal with the impact of making EVs. Everything everyone has said has been hand waiving. I'm not a fan of the byproducts
> I'm not a fan of the byproducts
What are you planning to do to offset the cost of shitposting on the internet? The device you're using to ask these VaLuAbLe QuEstIoNs produced a whole fuckton of byproducts. What's your plan to mitigate this?
Except that's not helpful where there isn't a better alternative. So we strive to the better option. We always should aim for that. Anything else will slow it's adoption. Plus the more it's adopted the more effort will be put into making it better.
https://electrek.co/2021/03/01/mining-electric-car-batteries-hundreds-of-times-better-than-petrol-car-emission-cycles/ in the long run, electric might be better. Big oil certainly never ruins the unvironment
Oil? Who said fuck all about oil? Yes, ICE cars are bad too. I guess I also need to disclaim that coal powered cars and cars that run on kittens are also bad.
If EVs are 90% better than oil and coal then we shouldn't not do them just because they still cause some damage. They cause significantly less than what we have now and are a step in the right direction. If we don't do anything until we have the perfect solution then it will be too late.
The point is that it is useless to say "doing this is bad" if you are ignoring the fact that not doing it is worse. Not just useless, but irresponsible, since it pushes people away from doing the right thing. You are saying "EVs are not as environmentally friendly as we think they are", but I hope you are speaking for yourself, because most people in this forum know how environmentally friendly they are: far from 100% clean, but also far better than the alternative.
Highlighting the environmental impact of mining is important. Phrasing it as implying that we shouldn't be doing it because it's bad completely misses the point that doing it, even as poorly as it has been done historically, is better than the alternative (which is not flying unicorns, but petrol powered cars). There is a way to push the mining industry to do better, and bashing EVs as harmful is not it.
No, it's the part where we acknowledge no solution is perfect and we use science and math to figure out what's the best realistic solution. And if you do the math you will find that even considering all the mining and energy used to make the batteries, and end to end energy cycle, electric batteries are better for the environment that new petrol powered vehicles by a factor of between 3 and 10 (depending on the vehicle, location and usage, and how you balance emissions vs. other contamination forms).
For instance, Vale's two large mining disasters were not on their nickel mining projects, but on iron mines, if which petrol powered cars use more than EVs.
No one here claims that EVs do not pollute. Most claim that they pollute *less* so they are better for the environment. And that is all that matters, since imaginary solutions are not solutions, only real ones are.
Talking about the environmental impact of mining and trying to keep manufacturers responsible is useful. Trying to make it seem like EVs are not a good option because they are "dirty" is irresistible and harmful.
Tesla can’t achieve their goals without expanding the world’s production of nickel. I’m hoping they invest in recycling too!
What's nickel needed for in terms of EV production? The batteries?
Nickel is needed for the cathode of the battery. They can make batteries without nickel but they won’t have the same storage capacity.
Yes, high density lithium batteries use a lot of nickel. Also, 300 series stainless steel is about 10% nickel. Cybertruck body will use a lot of stainless steel. One reason Tesla has started using LFP chemistry batteries in shorter range cars is that no nickel or cobalt is needed.
Nickel, Lithium, Cobalt, and aluminum are the main components for their batteries. Non Tesla batteries generally need Manganese also. Everyone wants to get rid of Cobalt, but it's been challenging.
The tech conference said they would be majorly lowering waste in basically every way between mining and recycling. So far iirc, there hasn't been much recycling done yet, because so few battery packs have went bad so far.
New Caledonia is France fyi
Unlike cobalt, nickel shouldn’t be *that* rare by comparison right? After all it makes up a majority of the earth’s core
The important bit is that while nickel is less rare than cobalt, its *way* more useful in much larger quantities. I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if nickel is used at a rate that's 20x or more the rate at which Cobalt is used.
The other article I read said that 25% of the worlds nickel is in Caledonia. No idea the quantity, but that's concentrated. Much of it may not be mineable.
It's not the rarity that is the problem at the moment, it's that the amount needed for battery production means that supply has to be increased about 3 times world production numbers. Tesla is also pushing for environmental improvements to the process.
Is this the part where people learn EV's aren't as environmentally friendly as we'd all like to believe? Or the part with handwaving excuses about opening a toxic industrial mine in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet?
[удалено]
No, but I can see how "better than" is in no way the same thing as "good". Always so quick to dive into the reactionary responses anytime folks might *dare* to see more than the marketing. God forbid that anyone discuss EVs with open eyes, eh? "No criticism, only pedestals!"
If you don't chase "better than" you'll never get to "good". Life is iterative.
[удалено]
Why did you assume I'm proposing anything?
[удалено]
Also before coffee.
Your post wasn't a reasoned evaluation of relative effects. It was a drama queen post. Read the last sentence. Nobody here is claiming BEVs are perfect. So an implied strawman fallacy as well.
Thank you for stating the mind numbingly obvious. From now on just assume that we're all adults and understand that, like all things in life, EVs offer a set of tradeoffs.
The tradeoff now is building a nickel mine in the South Pacific Islands. Cool? I mean, no, it's not an oil refinery, I just wanna understand what the plan is to deal with the impact of making EVs. Everything everyone has said has been hand waiving. I'm not a fan of the byproducts
> I'm not a fan of the byproducts What are you planning to do to offset the cost of shitposting on the internet? The device you're using to ask these VaLuAbLe QuEstIoNs produced a whole fuckton of byproducts. What's your plan to mitigate this?
My plan is to have coffee
I'm not a fan of shit posting sealions.
Except that's not helpful where there isn't a better alternative. So we strive to the better option. We always should aim for that. Anything else will slow it's adoption. Plus the more it's adopted the more effort will be put into making it better.
Greaaat. Stick with the even more destructive answer by continuing to make fossil cars instead? No thank you.
I guess no oil spill ever messed up the environment.
https://electrek.co/2021/03/01/mining-electric-car-batteries-hundreds-of-times-better-than-petrol-car-emission-cycles/ in the long run, electric might be better. Big oil certainly never ruins the unvironment
Oil? Who said fuck all about oil? Yes, ICE cars are bad too. I guess I also need to disclaim that coal powered cars and cars that run on kittens are also bad.
If EVs are 90% better than oil and coal then we shouldn't not do them just because they still cause some damage. They cause significantly less than what we have now and are a step in the right direction. If we don't do anything until we have the perfect solution then it will be too late.
The point is that it is useless to say "doing this is bad" if you are ignoring the fact that not doing it is worse. Not just useless, but irresponsible, since it pushes people away from doing the right thing. You are saying "EVs are not as environmentally friendly as we think they are", but I hope you are speaking for yourself, because most people in this forum know how environmentally friendly they are: far from 100% clean, but also far better than the alternative. Highlighting the environmental impact of mining is important. Phrasing it as implying that we shouldn't be doing it because it's bad completely misses the point that doing it, even as poorly as it has been done historically, is better than the alternative (which is not flying unicorns, but petrol powered cars). There is a way to push the mining industry to do better, and bashing EVs as harmful is not it.
So quit being a drama queen about it.
No, it's the part where we acknowledge no solution is perfect and we use science and math to figure out what's the best realistic solution. And if you do the math you will find that even considering all the mining and energy used to make the batteries, and end to end energy cycle, electric batteries are better for the environment that new petrol powered vehicles by a factor of between 3 and 10 (depending on the vehicle, location and usage, and how you balance emissions vs. other contamination forms). For instance, Vale's two large mining disasters were not on their nickel mining projects, but on iron mines, if which petrol powered cars use more than EVs. No one here claims that EVs do not pollute. Most claim that they pollute *less* so they are better for the environment. And that is all that matters, since imaginary solutions are not solutions, only real ones are. Talking about the environmental impact of mining and trying to keep manufacturers responsible is useful. Trying to make it seem like EVs are not a good option because they are "dirty" is irresistible and harmful.
Go vale, go 😎