EV CO2 Reduction is an Illusion, on a Lifetime, A-to-Z basis

EV CO2 Reduction is an Illusion, on a Lifetime, A-to-Z basis

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-co2-reduction-is-an...

NOTE : THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE READ ON AN IPAD OR COMPUTER

A dozen states have joined California and some countries in passing legislation to ban the sale of highly reliable, long-range, gasoline vehicles, and push everyone into short-range (especially in winter), unreliable, expensive to own-and-operate electric vehicles.

Similarly, in a feat of regulatory hubris, the EPA has proposed emissions rules that would effectively ban gasoline vehicles, i.e., coerce automakers to abandon/strand 120 years of technology and to sell mostly, still-unreliable EVs.

Increasing Cost of the Inflation Reduction Act

To push forward the EV takeover, the idiotically-named Inflation Reduction Act, (IRA), helicopters grossly-excessive subsidies across the EV ecosystem in the US, Canadian, Mexico and even in Europe.

The alleged, 10-y cost of the IRA is $385 billion, as estimated by the Office of Budget and Management, OBM, in 2022.

NOTE: OBM serves only the US Congress to estimate the budget impact of to-be-enacted laws.
Very often, private financial entities have significantly greater estimates, because their estimates are made for advising clients to invest, whereas the US Congress, has a much more “relaxed” approach regarding spending other people’s money.

The IRA also includes totally unrealistic goals for wind, solar and batteries by 2030

Senator Manchin, who provided the deciding vote, objected to the recent, expensive “implementation changes”.

He was warned he would be fooled before casting the deciding vote, and, indeed, he was!

He is considering running for President!

The actual 10-y cost will be about $1.045 TRILLION, according to the estimating specialists at the Wharton School of Finance, with input from Goldman-Sachs, because of “major changes of implementation” , made by the Biden government folks in 2023.

This means the subsidy-gravy-train for investors, many of them foreign entities, in case of offshore wind turbines, will be almost 3 times bigger during these 10 years.

A nice freebie windfall for them, an additional screwing of all others.

Full steam ahead, to hell with the deficit!

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE OBM LOW-BALLING TO GET A LAW ENACTED, I.E., ANOTHER,

STANDARD BAIT-AND-SWITCH, THAT WILL INCREASE THE $31.7 TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT

CO2 Reductions?

The rush to subsidize and mandate EVs is driven by a fatal assumption: EVs will radically reduce CO2 emissions.

That assumption is made by "we-own-the-science" folks, i.e., green-Media pundits, government-supported academia/think tanks, and administrators of the regulatory state

But the reality is, because of the nature of uncertainties in global industrial ecosystems, no one knows how much widespread adoption of EVs would reduce CO2 emissions, or whether they might even increase them.

That relevant and surprising emissions wildcard comes from the huge, energy-hungry processes and infrastructures needed to make EV battery packs.

Almost all of the mis-informed, media-befuddled public does not know, higher percentages of wind and solar on the grid, plus more EVs, more heat pumps and more electric cook stoves, would:

1) Greatly reduce the reliability of 24/7/365 electricity production,

2) Greatly increase the need for electricity production

3) Greatly increase the need for grid expansion/reinforcement, and super-expensive energy storage

This is one of those technical conundrums that tends to attract slogans, simplifications, and illusions of accuracy

However, a better understanding requires some patience.

EV Emissions Realities Start with Physics

To match the energy stored in one pound of oil requires 15 pounds of lithium battery, which in turn requires digging up about 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to get the required minerals, such as lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, neodymium, manganese, and so on.

Thus, fabricating of ONE, 1000-lb EV battery pack requires mining, and processing about 250 tons of materials.
(These quantities hold true for all lithium chemistries)

NOTE:

A Chevy Bolt battery pack weighs 947 pounds. Recently, GM ended production of the Bolt model.

A Mustang Mach E battery pack weighs more than 1000 pounds. 

For the carbon-counters, who track such data, the global mining and minerals sector uses 40 percent of all industrial energy and infrastructure.

The mining and minerals sector is dominated by oil, coal, and natural gas.

In 2020, it provided 140,000 TWh of the world's primary energy of 175,000 TWh, or 80%

That percentage has been nearly constant for at least 40 years.

See image

The world primary energy is fed to all users, such as power plants, process plants, transport, commercial products plants, heating/cooling buildings, etc.

The primary energy of wind, solar and other renewables is almost invisible after $trillions spent over 30 years

In the future, there would be Increased energy use by the global mining and minerals sector to achieve:

1) Production of increased oil, coal and natural gas, plus

2) Production of increased wind, solar and batteries, to serve "Electrify Everything" , plus

3) A NEW, mining to EV supply-chain to build infrastructures, plus at least 200 new battery factories to produce materials  and battery packs for future EVs.

.

The inherent uncertainties about calculating real-world EV emissions arise from myriad “known unknowns” about mining and refining activities, and other items, such as: 

1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, including construction loan financing costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates, due to increasing consumer prices, and 7) increased costs of labor hiring, training, retention, etc.

A Major Part of Lifetime CO2 of EVs Occurs Before the First Mile is Driven

It starts by finding a new mine, developing it into a producing entity, which takes about 10 years; separate ore from other materials; transport ore to other places for further refining, to finally become a battery cell of which thousands are needed by each EV battery pack, that has useful life of about 10 years.

A Tesla semi truck, now in production, has 9 battery packs under the driver compartment, totaling 900 kWh, about 9000 lbs, which significantly detracts from money-making payloads, because truck and trailer could exceed highway load limits.
The 900 kWh is enough for about 12 medium-size EVs

California, a Unique Place

California Governor Gavin Newsom, full of self-serving hubris and ignorance, announced: "Half of all heavy-duty trucks sold in CA will be electric by 2035."

He likely has no idea: 1) where the materials would come from, 2) where the EV assembly plants and charging stations would be, 3) what power plants, other than unreliable wind and solar, would produce the electricity, 4) how much grid expansion/augmentation would be required, and 5) where to process and store the hazardous landfill of the batteries of collision-damaged/total-loss/retired EVs

Dysfunctional California has made many such “decisions”, over the decades, which finally led to a $32 BILLION deficit in 2023, because many sectors of the economy are tanking

Reparations to anyone with a past grievance? A cool $800 BILLION would be required, just for California.

Exodus and Inflow: No wonder long-term, tax-paying, citizen-residents are leaving dysfunctional California for other states (at least 350,000/y), which uphold more traditional values, i.e., have not succumbed to extremist, woke-like idiocies

Those people are being replaced by poor, unvetted, inexperienced, untrained, uneducated folks from all over the world (some nations empty their prisons to help out), who just walk across Biden’s open border, by the millions, each year, and are handed a cell phone for free, plus a lot of other goods and services for free

The $multi-BILLION annual costs are charged to the ever-increasing 31.7 TRILLION national debt

Upstream CO2 of Gasoline Vehicles

Gasoline vehicles also have upstream process emissions, though these derive mainly from steel and iron, which account for 85 percent of their weight.

Those upstream process emissions are a minor factor, if burning various energy sources, mostly coal, oil and natural gas, were used for these processes

They would become a major, adverse, environmental factor, if burning biofuels for upstream processing; a favorite pipe dream of naive folks

NOTE: On an A-to-Z, lifetime basis:

Upstream processing much more materials of different types for EVs dominates their total CO2 footprint.

The upstream processing part is purposely ignored/obfuscated/lied-about by EV proponents

Operation of gasoline vehicles dominates their total CO2 footprint.

CO2 Intensity, lb of CO2 per lb of metal

Production of EV metals, such as copper, nickel, and aluminum, requires, on average, three to ten times more energy per pound than does steel production per pound.
All other EV minerals are similarly energy-intense.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), based in Paris, France, flagged these realities in a 2021 report.

Whereas, that report focused on the inadequacy of the supplies of “energy minerals” (a concept that has become more widely known in 2022 and 2023), the researchers noted, upstream CO2 emissions from fabricating an EV can “vary considerably across companies and regions.” 

For example, the mining and processing of copper or nickel ore can lead to a doubling or tripling of the CO2 emissions intensities, depending on a facility’s age, process types, and locations.

EVs require several hundred more pounds of copper than a gasoline vehicle.

EVs require several hundred more pounds of aluminum, than a gasoline vehicle

Two-thirds of WORLD aluminum production comes from "dirty/evil", coal-fired power plants in China, Russia, and India. The U.S. produces just 2 percent of the world's aluminum

NOTE: Wind and solar electricity producing systems require 8 to 12 times more copper than coal and gas power plants, if both technologies are producing the same MWh/y. 

Mining, processing, refining, transporting materials for EVs in China, which produces about 70% of the WORLD supply of “EV energy minerals”, have various particulates emissions, and CO2 emissions, that are at least 1.5 times greater per ton than in the EU or US 

Review of Dozens of Studies of Upstream Emissions

A review of dozens of studies of upstream emissions revealed EV lifecycle emissions varied by five-fold. It gets worse.

That same review found, the median size of the battery assumed for the analyses was 30 kilowatt-hours.

But the overwhelming majority of EVs bought in the US, in 2021, had batteries of 60 to 100 kWh.

Tripling battery capacity triples the physical supply-chain, and upstream emissions, from mine to EV

Heavier batteries require heavier/stronger EVs, and wears out tires and brakes quicker, and requires stronger multi-story garages and stronger bridges.

EVs are a “gift” that keeps on giving, the more you look under the hood

None of these variables appears in government forecasts for “zero emissions” cars, likely because they do not want you to know "what is under the hood".

In fact, the range of upstream emissions per EV battery pack is so wide, it is meaningless to use an average number to calculate an EV’s CO2 footprint, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis

Nevertheless, that is what government and other "analysts" insist on doing (or are told to do), whether at the EU-IEA or US-EPA, or US-EIA, which all sing the same tune to display "unity”

VW and Volvo Studies

Some automakers—notably Volkswagen and Chinese-owned Volvo—have published their own studies that account both upstream process emissions and "grid realities", i.e., realities of 1) reliable, 24/7/365 electricity production, and 2) grid capacity and stability, especially with higher percentages of variable wind and solar on the grid 

The studies found, an EV powered on Europe’s grid creates more CO2 emissions than a gasoline vehicle until at least 50,000 miles of driving

That "breakeven" is after about 6 years of driving for an EV, which typically logs about 8300 miles/y.

The average US car logs about 12000 miles/y

The battery factory warrantee regarding manufacturing defects (not performance) usually expires after 8 years.

The studies found, after 120,000 miles (14.4 years of driving an EV; are you kidding me?), the CO2-emission reduction, compared to a EU-average-efficiency gasoline vehicle, was about 15 to 25%.

I wonder, if significant battery aging, at about 1.5%/y compounded, was taken into account. No battery replacement?

That is nowhere near the “net-ZERO” goal spouted by the naive proponents of EVs

Those CO2 percent savings are less for big batteries than for small ones.

The trend is towards bigger-capacity batteries, because of range fears, especially with the cabin and battery heaters on in winter

The calculated CO2 percent reductions collapse, and even evaporate entirely, if one factors in the higher ranges of known values for upstream emissions of mining-to-EV, rather than the lower, average values chosen in those studies.

Wall Street Journal EV Investigative Essay

Even the Wall Street Journal was baffled by the appearance of precision and the consequence of “hidden” assumptions that emerge from the complexities of upstream emissions

The more one looked "under the hood", the bigger the "can of worms"

In a featured 2021 investigation directed at unearthing the truth of EV emissions, the Journal concluded, even accounting for sufficient, stable, 24/7/365 electricity production, and grid capacity and reliability, and availability of mining/refining materials, “the data shows, switching from gasoline to electric vehicles will make a huge impact.”

That is a "profound statement" of nonsense. Keep reading

That statement was based on a study, the Journal commissioned from a University of Toronto team.

That team like consisted of senior and graduate students and a professor.

The team, as expected, chose an extremely low—arguably wildly unrealistic—value for upstream emissions from battery fabrication; they made the upstream CO2 elephant look small.

The Team members identified their assumptions in their primary research annex, which 99 out of 100 people would never see.

The review of 50 studies, described above, showed the median value for upstream emissions was three-fold higher, and the maximum value was six-fold higher than the value the Toronto team used.

This is a great example of “cherry-picking” to deceive the lay public

The Journal’s lifecycle emissions calculation, using the Toronto team "values", minimizes the impact of upstream CO2 emission, which are a significant part of lifetime, A-to-Z emissions.

The Toronto team also performed studies for the Canadian government

The Team could not possibly undermine its prior studies.

The Team had to be "consistent" doing the WSJ study.

It goes to show how A-to-Z ignorant/devious/complicit some WSJ folks are.

The Journal investigation was in good company, i.e., spouting the government-approved EV line.

After all, the EU-IEA had also asserted, high emissions “along the mineral supply chain do not negate the clear climate advantages of clean energy technologies,” a claim faithfully parroted by US and EU governments, and EV proponents, and duly enshrined in onerous, save-the-world, EV mandates and gasoline vehicle bans.

What are these climate advantages? Relative to what? Please quantify?

But as the IEA’s own data shows, that assertion is anything but clear.

It’s difficult, perhaps impossible, to identify where specific minerals are sourced and thus their actual associated emissions.

Worse still for the "carbon counters", we know the world's CO2 emissions are steadily increasing, as if the world had done nothing regarding wind, solar and batteries.

The IEA acknowledges, the impending demand surge for energy minerals comes as global ore grades continue to “deteriorate across a range of commodities,” due to geological realities.

Poorer ore grades mean more of the Earth must be dug up and processed to yield the same pound of metal.

So, per the IEA, “lower-grade ores require more energy . . . produce more greenhouse gases and waste volumes.”

For example, during the past decade in Chile, the world’s top supplier of copper, energy use for mining, processing, shipping, etc., has increased at a ten times greater rate than the rate of growth of copper production.  

EV enthusiasts respond that the technology will get better.

What particular technology do they have in mind?

Copper mining in Chili proves them to be fantasizing dreamers.

Better, lighter batteries are possible, eventually.

Better mining technology that will lead to lower costs/lb and a less CO2 footprint/EV.

But progress is slow in big industrial domains.

Rushing to subsidize and mandate yesterday’s technologies won’t make that future happen sooner

Perhaps someday the U.S. will re-shore a minerals industry that would be both cleaner and more transparent.

Don’t hold your breath, because it first has to get its multi-TRILLION-dollar, federal-deficit spending under control

Meantime, hundreds of billions of dollars, designated for wildly premature all-EV mandates, will likely become stranded capital, because the quantities of minerals needed won’t be available soon enough.

Building EV assembly plants without having reliable delivery of battery packs?

Think of the $billions wasted on CO2-capture, which has been a 30-y government boondoggle with no economically viable results

Think of the $billions wasted on solar arrays in the US southwest desert, with hot liquid storage, to inefficiently produce steam, to produce very little of expensive, 20 c/kWh (wholesale), electricity, 24/7/365.

Two hugely expensive, government-financed, pipes dreams, merely lined the pockets of politically connected insiders. 

Along the way, those wasted/stranded $billions (added to government debt) will have caused an addition to CO2 emissions

In the end, the rush to EVs could actually increase global vehicle-related emissions.