That’d weird. I ALWAYS find that type of analysis to engender hope in the future.

It's coming to an end. Just repent!!!

This channel fucks for shit like that dude.

That's because "trust the science" types also tend to be liberal for whatever reason. And the liberals thrive on your suffering.

humanity deserves to die, the faster the better, we have dont nithing good on this planet, war, crime famine, suffering, cruelty,

Agreed 👍

Thanks so much Derek! It was fun to take on a more grounded video here and I’m so pleased you enjoyed it too.

Cracks me up how he lowers expectations with “I am not an Economist” then proceeds to lay out an analysis far superior that just about anything I’ve seen written in Forbes and WSJ about this subject. It seems that the business world in general has a poor understanding of Li.

*Wow... the internet today, Poe's Law. So difficult.*

I wonder if there is lithium in Israel's Dead Sea. If so it could be mined and replenished by water from the Mediterranean Sea. In addition hydropower could be extracted in the process.

Thanks! Trying to be open to experimenting with content, keeps it fun and interesting for me as the creator too

Thanks for the kind comment!

Actually, because of improvements to Li-ion batteries we may see an issue with lithium availability but for an entirely different reason (failure to die). The latest chemistries are so good that they will see over 1500 "full" charge cycles. For an EV with 300 miles of range that means well over 400,000 miles of life and that's just until the capacity has fallen to between 60% and 70% of the original capacity. They will still function just fine albeit with 30% to 40% less range. The car will be gone long before the battery packs die and used battery packs are too valuable to discard with too much remaining capacity to warrant recycling. Batteries are only going to get better so I'm not sure where this ends.

I'll leave a comment here, for I truly hope it'll get your channel a bit more well-deserved exposure: Due to your comment, I went over and checked out your channel, the nosy bloke that I am, and I have to say... wherever you've found your inspiration for cooking up these videos, you must have had an eye for spotting the exact right places. But I am sure that what fascinates us viewers and which you can deliver has its roots in your very own, natural talent nonetheless. A rare gem to find in today's UKposts landscape, to say the least!

@@ancogaming wow, I don’t really know what to say… thank you so much?!❤️

By far the biggest help Washington can do is to streamline mine/mill permitting process that takes a decade today, mandates, incentives and other costly ways *will not* help for local production without getting out of the darn road to production. Canada takes only some 2 yrs for the same process.

That’s an excellent point and a good way to save on lithium

Yu Lu: Yup. Instead of electric batteries, large stationary systems can use heat storage, gravity, etc. -- the key is cheap, reliable, durable energy storage that can generate electricity (by, say, driving a turbine), and be 'recharged" to store the needed energy repeatedly. Just like for oil, where we should be using it for things we badly need (materials) vs. just stupidly burning it, using lithium for where the light weight is needed makes lots of sense. The good news is that over time, economics tends to reward using things wisely at large scale -- though it can take a long time for industries to mature enough to "get there".

@Peter from NZ Regarding your point (a): That was my thought too, but I read that a grid even the size of Europe is way too small to work, aka will occasionally drop below 10 %. And larger grids are just not feasible today. Regarding (b): Nevertheless the majority of power consumption is still instant, the large industries consumers and commerce.

@Peter from NZ Your right, I didn't specified it more clearly cus I didn't remember it enough. What I remember: It said in a grid the size of Europe we would need more than 10 times more installed capacity than needed, so that at any given time to not have power outages with only renewable energy.

@Peter from NZ Maybe you are right.

Have you heard about hydrogen cells? Small tank of hydrogen in your car can give you way better range than the best battery-powered EVs. And it's so ridiculously simple.. Just take a tank, fill it with hydrogen (which takes minutes at most like in every regular car nowadays, not hours for EVS) and you're good to go. There's nothing to degrade, no elaborate chemistry needed, it's also much safer. Everything is pointing to hydrogen cells in EVs making it absolutely obvious choice yet somehow people still seem to push their money and effort into batteries. It's ridiculous.

@@JayPixx Hindenburg.

@@actually5004 Hindenburg what? Haha you tried to be clever I suppose xD Try to think about your comparison deeper and come back smarter.

@@JayPixx Elon and many others have explained in detail why hydrogen is not a good fuel for most use cases. Some large scale uses is about the only cases where it makes sense... look into it, please... There are some basic physics that get in the way and some large scale distribution and generation problems as well... It is far from an "obvious choice", it is obvious why it is a terrible idea, actually...

@@karlsjostedt8415 absolutely not and I "looked into it".. A lot. Why do you think Musk says hydro isn't good? Do I really have to spell out the reasons for you? ;) Oh, and feel free to give me some examples of why is it so difficult to generate and distribute hydro? :) especially the generate part, because it's so easy we wouldn't even have to distribute it.

@EO Then thank the grad students and post docs. Cheers,

Short answer, it's really fucking bad. Long story. Switching to EV will destroy energy stability of 3rd world countries and some 1st world countries will become 3rd world (you can already see the problem developing in real time on Germany and don't buy the msm bullshit, it's not Russia's fault, Trump even warned Germany about this, they laugh at him, they're not laughing now). Now mining... well... remember the blood diamonds? multiply the effect x10000, countries that are already dystopic will become even more miserable for those unfortunate to born there, look at southamerica, companies mining lithium there are foreign investments, mainly China and Canada, working conditions are hazardous and if you suffer an accident you can forget about getting any kind of meaningful compensation, governments are not and will not be your side. The amount of energy needed to recharge a battery will probably go down as new technology emerges, but the requirement is there, hope you love nuclear energy because that's gonna be the only way for a nation to supply the energy that will be needed without going to war every 2 years. Nuclear energy is by the way, the cleanest energy we can have today so if you're one of those virtue signaling champagne socialist ecohypocrites you better remember this when you're bitching on twatter about new nuclear power plants being planned. Battery recycling doesn't look good, realistically speaking, only countries with a lot of money will be able to do so, but at the expense of new taxes, recycling is neither cheap nor profitable, it's gonna be subsidized with your money but you'll see no earnings. So... EV it's not good enough to go full in, even the prices are trash, they cost almost 4 times a normal vehicle, so if you don't make 100k yearly you will probably not own an EV anytime soon, and prices thanks to the globalists at the WEF will only go up. Welcome to 1984, you will own nothing and be happy.

I would also ask what the effects of climate change might have on our ability to mine, recycle, and research. There's the matter of maintaining and improving our infrastructure to withstand higher climatic demands and stresses, as well as growing demand for consumption, especially as we need electricity for cooling or heating. What's the expected (growing) demand for lithium to support infrastructure? I see another upward demand curve here.

(This video is for explanation purpose only in Animation of the prototype of the device in UKposts) ukposts.info/have/v-deo/r5Z4nn2ohJx8r6c.html

Do you always play with yourself in public?

What you should do is start worrying about food production and it's efficiency when it comes to having the total population rise up to 10 billion.

Where are you going to get the electricity to power the batteries

@@autohmae exactly, my recent comment, lithium has nothing to do with nothing when compared to population n power production....

@@autohmae We probably won't reach that number within this century or the next. All first world countries fertility rate per women is below 2.1 and as soon as Africa get below that as it eventually will, everyone will feel the reduction of people (be it good or bad). Some country already face this problem like Japan and within 1-2 decades China.

Graphene Aluminium-ion batteries should be coming out to EV's by 2025/2026 and could be a big help to this problem. No lithium, manganese, cobalt, etc. Just aluminium and graphene. The big crux of these batteries is the graphene, which until now, hasn't been easy to manufacture. A few companies (Graphene Manufacturing Group for one) are on the cusp of mass producing battery grade graphene on the cheap. As well as their batteries.

🤫

You dont need to wonder, there are studies out there

Yeah lithium like with all lithophile element extraction is not an energy friendly process (and pretty much all mining is an environmental nightmare) also lets not forget we long exceeded the "safe" energy storage threshold for lithium ion meaning that our batteries can be considered ticking time bombs prone to spontaneous combustion. Also lets not forget that the plans for nuclear fusion also call for lithium in a non renewable application via using it for nuclear transmutation to produce tritium for the chosen fusion process based on energetic concerns. Thus if fusion succeeds there will be a constant demand for nonrenewable depletion of lithium

Lower than the cost of not mining it

It doesn't matter aslong it is more abundance of them then fossil fuel which is limited

Who is Anton Petrov?

"You are to science education as Philip Glass is to music..." Philip Glass, the famous taxi driver who was flagged down on Broadway while his music was being premiered at Lincoln Center? I dunno. Can David Kipping pass the test for his license? Or will he, sob, end up the Billie Holiday of science education, unable to get his cabaret card?

The video is actually generally wrong. There's already efficient recycling happening of lithium ion batteries, it's just not at a significant level yet as there's very little lithium batteries to recycle yet.

Also not factored in is growth in local power storage, if it picks that that could consume as much if not more than EVs. As renewable energy has to be stored for quick release and gravity based storage solutions may not be enough.

@@Codysdab Each EV stores enough energy to run a house for about a week... And they are starting to and will ever more be used as stationary storage to help balance the grid... Also, the cell chemistries that are cheaper but not energy dense enough be to put into a moving vehicle is what is used for stationary storage, so one supply is not necessarily taking away from a different supply...

Indeed. PUBLIC TRANSIT. Busses, trains, metros, etc.

I think cities designed around cars is mostly United States/Canada problem, not the world problem. Although there's a push for an electric public transport now. Bus with a battery seems more convenient than a huge electic grid for trams or trolleys. Couple of years back, largest trolleybus system in the world was dismantled, in Moscow, in favor of new electric buses. Which can spontaneously catch fire btw. I read about same thing in Germany, like whole bus depot with 100+ vehicles burned down because of 1 damaged battery or something.

👍

check out tom scott

Yes! Sustainable energy is basically vaporware. It sounds nice but, unless we make jumps in magnitudes, it will never be able to power the world

I agree in more than one way, yet a lot of people are afraid of nucleare, wich can be understand but we cannot tolerate anymore in the situation we are in right now. Massive neutre and accurate information should be given to mass of people, starting immediately. Sadly if I try so I will be chased down from every part on internet. Oh, and we should reduce our growing demand on energy. At least this. Asap. Anyone any idea how to do all of this? I take any.

@@louiseb3146 If you truly feel the ‘calling’ to ‘evangelize’ for NUCEAR POWER, I recommend that you leave URL call words, such as “GOOGLE LFTR and/or MSR Nuclear power generation”. That way you can get an assist from those who have already polished their spiel. This method applies to just about any point that you may wish to make.

Great points. Unless we address the fundamental way we use energy (using and using without thought for the long term), I fear we will be in an increasingly tighter spot energy-wise.

There is so much wrong with the op, I don't even know where to start. What unilateral push? There is none, strawman lover. Infrastructure grows with demand, which will grow with demand for electric-only vehicles. Also, natural gas is not perfect, but having that provide energy at scale is WAY better vs the burning of oil-based gas on each and every individual car. And renewable that is not fission-based can scale up while we rely on other non-fission solutions. The real problem that you and your cohorts will never overcome is that fission has REALLY bad PR - and it earned with the accidents that have happened (and not because of some green loving person). You live in a fantasy world if, for example, you think we will build these out in the US with it being nickel and dimed until, sooner or later, there is an accident. The private section can certainly not be trusted with fission, and the government will bend to that will and just screw it up all the same. Also - none of your supporters want to live anywhere near it, so you whining about nimby-ism is especially funny.

Good idea I suspect will have to happen to some degree

I think that a lot of the tech, at least for home applications, use deep cycle batteries. So, they already use heavier type cells?

We have SCADS of Zinc for Zinc Flow batteries. If we had to, we could replace all the gas stations with Zinc electrolyte stations. You’d literally “fill up your tank” while discharging spent electrolyte for recharging. You pump the electrolyte through the battery plates to power the wheels. But the graphene/aluminum ion solid state batteries will probably eliminate any demand for Zinc Flow cars. I’ve read that Zinc Flow batteries are very well suited to Grid power backup. If you can store ten THOUSAND GALLONS of charged electrolyte underground, why would you use any other battery chemistry?

Already been happening... Chemistries that are cheaper but less energy dense go into stationary storage and lower range cars... Future techs are planned the same... basic business to aim products with different specifications at different market applications...

no, it's bad, in most circumstances batteries are like the worst way of storing energy from solar and electric cars suck in most instances, better public transport would help way more

Lithium isn't really the material we need to worry about running out of. It is the other materials used in batteries that are less common that might be a bigger deal.

I spend most of my time in NYC and never drive there. We use the subway and my OneWheel, so totally agree. But the NY subway is underfunded and deteriorating, it floods every year, has so much break pad particulates in the air it’s toxic and is often delayed. I’d love nothing more than to see serious investment into the subways, but I tried to avoid wishful or political thinking here, and just give you the current projections and mandates divorced from any personal biases.

Yea you're dreaming if you think US infrastructure is getting people anywhere haha

@@CoolWorldsLab I still wonder if the chosen projections take changes in city planning and transportation into account. Ongoing climate change will also have a huge impact on people even wanting cars or being able to buy them. I don't think car sales will still grow as large as they used to. Modes of transportation will change. More people have to take the orange pill.

The racial demographics of modern cities are extraordinarily alienating, making the daily usage of public transportation a daring and dangerous adventure.

@@daisy9181 I'm not going to argue that public transportation (especially in the US) does not have some serious downsides, and right now is typically only utilized by economically poorer individuals who are more likely to engage in unsafe drug use, and that public transportation is often dirty. I do have two things to say though. 1. Public transportation is dirty because only poor people use it and as such no one wants or is able to pay money to clean things up when messes inevitably happen. Think of it as the difference between going to a public bathroom in a nice area of town as opposed to the sketchy area of town. A public bathroom in the nice area of town is much more likely to be clean, and less likely to have sketchy things going on inside, despite both technically being open to everyone. As more money is put into building and improving public transportation, more wealthier individuals will be willing to give it a chance and the more that use it, the more people will be willing to spend money to further improve and clean up public transportation. 2. Those problems say more about the state of American society and social problems within cities than being critiques of public transportation specifically. It says we have a large portion of people who are homeless, poor, and engaging in unsafe drug usage for one reason or another. The difference between everyone driving and everyone riding public transportation or walking is that with the former all of society's ills are hidden away in our own little metal cubicles. In short, if you don't feel comfortable riding public transportation, that is an indication that we should be doing more to make it and our societies better, not to throw away the idea altogether. Public transportation has a lot of advantages that driving can't match, and to be frank, driving can only support a very low population density without leading to a need for massive roads, taking up space that would be used for housing and dramatically increasing average commutes and driving up housing prices for those in inner suburban circles as people prefer not to have to drive 30+ minutes to go places. Even Houston, with all its sprawling and massive roads, still has to add a new lane every few years because the highway becomes completely clogged. So while I don't think public transportation is necessary to decarbonfy our transportation network, I do think it would help, and to whatever extent we are able to reduce car usage, especially in our largest metropolitan areas where car usage makes the least amount of sense, will help with other issues like noise pollution, average commute times, and hopefully housing prices (though there are obviously a lot of other factors that have led to high housing prices so I'm certainly not going to promise that we'll all have affordable housing if we just start building public transportation and higher density housing to go along with it, though it likely wouldn't hurt).

No, in nearly every industrial country, the grid engineers will tell you the grid can and will cope fine. For one thing everybody will never charge their cars simultaneously, the same as every ICE car does not turn up at the pumps at the same time. And EVs can actually help the grid, by using up the abundant spare off-peck energy. (most grids spend most the time at around 40% capacity). And as grids bolt on more and more renewables will be more and more times when the grid has excess spare cheap energy. And there is the potential of VTG! And all power grids are dynamic and evolve and continuously change over time (for example when AC was introduced in the US the grid demand doubled in a decade) But yes, I'm sure there will be some minor teething problems along way which the press will jump on!

@@stevetaylor2818 That's cope, actually.

@@stevetaylor2818 wrong

Have had my EV for coming up to 5 years without any degradation. at the moment I feel that my car will fall to pieces before the battery needs selling to household storage.

not entirely true. many people successfully predict future trends of tech, social norms, economies etc. we just don't get exposed to them by mainstream medias who are controlled by corporations with vested interests in certain outcomes over others and want to influence that in their favor.

@@daltonbedore8396 Just as many, if not more, people make incorrect predictions. Your conspiratorial response doesn't refute the OP in any way.

@@ilicdjo Original Poster

@@ilicdjo tf is tf?

@@brettvv7475 There was no conspiracy AT ALL in that person's post. Try harder. People make predictions all the time - we knew about global warming for DECADES (early predictions about it are almost entirely correct) - yet most people DIDN'T actually know about all that - because... why? Yeah, that's what I thought. I guess your reply is much dumber than at first glance. Cheat sheet - the oil companies knew about global warming and the human effect on it for many decades and lied about it while even preparing for it - because making money was way more important than the future of the planet. Oh, it must suck to be so totally wrong when there are EASY examples of Dalton being 100000% correct. But who knows, maybe Dalton also things some dumb crap about a flat earth or whatever, but their point stands, and your reply is stupid.

Thanks Paul! It’s great knowing your car isn’t hurting the planet (even if it hurts our wallets for the up front cost right now!)

Damn you rich

*opens a tin on baked beans* no sun so need more gas until sun comes up again

He's what you'd call "super smart". 😁

Solves brilliantly the economics of the Li shortage issue, mind you, none of us knew we had such problem to start with; and all by starting the analysis with “I’m not an economist, but…”. Love this channel!

It most certainly is not because it's based upon Californian politics. In the UK, for example, public opinion is against the adoption of EVs by 2030 because the UK currently doesn't produce enough energy to meet our current demands, let alone the demands of increased EV. Until a country is able to produce the energy needs involved in EV take up EV take up will remain low, and while a country's populace is struggling to pay bills and having to chose between eating and energy bills, public opinion will remain firmly against this.

@@saladinbob exactly and just like every other video pushing the unworkable fantasies of so called green energy. Not 1 mention of money. Not 1 graph on prices. not even a hint at a basic financial cost analysis .

It really isn't.

You do lose some energy density with sodium but it may supplant lithium is lithium supply can’t keep up, as we suggest could happen here. I don’t believe the Salton Sea is included in the supply projections.

@@CoolWorldsLab it sounds like stationary energy storage applications are going to be the first big market for sodium. Energy density is lagging but perhaps that can be improved with more investment.

@@pipertripp Sodium will eventually move into energy storage but will take a long time to scale up. We’ve had 30 years of experience scaling and developing lithium ion.

Well the Salton Sea is an active rhyolitic volcanic system (there is an active magma chamber down there which supplies the geothermal power and irregularly erupts every few thousand years) and rhyolitic volcanism due to how crystal fractionalization works within a magma chamber is the most chemically enriched natural source environment for lithium for the same reason the Andes are so effective. There are other interior basins within North America's basin and range province a major set of geological extensional rift complexes and crustal thinning with an arid climate meaning much of the lithium has been trapped due to the lack of outlets. For this same reason other dry silica rich volcanic provinces such as much of East Africa, much of the Middle east(the dead sea is a rift lake and lift associated crustal extension and occasionally volcanism are ever present geological forces there. The Armenian highlands lake Van is another good place to look into since lake Van was formed due to the active Nemrut volcano Note I'm following the USGS definition of active rather than Turkey's since by their definition any volcano not currently spewing magma is dormant and its last eruption was only in 1650 so it is absurd to call it "dormant" since it is about par for the eruption frequency of such silica rich magma systems. There also is some suitable volcanics up in Alaska particularly the Land of a thousand smokes from the Novarupta eruption from Katmai's magma chamber as the region is arid enough that it probably hasn't had all of its salts dissolved out. Indonesia has lots of volcanoes but climatically its tropical environment and close proximity to the ocean means it is all to easy to leech out the minerals into the wider ocean system. There is also active rift complexes between the Amur plate and Eurasian plates responsible for the formation of lake Baikal but that has so much freshwater input that the salts are extremely diluted (the lake is freshwater) and even if it was economical the lake is such a unique and ancient ecoregion that any such efforts could have devastating consequences. Antarctica is another active complex but aside from a few particularly active volcanoes like Mt Erebus most of the activity is deep beneath the ice and will be freshwater saturated environments so not really suitable. Australia has very little volcanism but the continent has been dry for so long that there isn't really anywhere for the salts to go. So Yeah the arid and long volcanic history of the American Southwest (Its been volcanically active out west since at least the Jurassic but the peak activity was the Tertiary ignimbrite flare up episode which is analogous to the modern Andean Ignimbrite flare up episode, and thus altogether it actually is probably one of the best places on Earth for Lithium mining.

@@Dragrath1 Thanks a lot for great geological information! I live in France, and we have two known deposits of Li, which could cover all France's present and future needs for Li. One is some underground brine layers in Alsace, the other some rock deposits in Massif Central, a former volcanic region. I read that the first one would be relatively easy and economical to exploit, while the second one would be more expensive to mine, and more questionable for environmental reasons.

An huge and hard to predict other question is: what will the impact of other technologies be. If other battery technologies take a huge chunk of the EV market than it would help reduce some of the lithium demand.

There are good reasons lead acid are not used more... Compare weights, costs, energy density, etc... The tech survives for certain applications, newer tech is needed for other applications... If you look at the whole picture, it makes sense...

@@realitycheck908 Nuclear energy, which I agree is cleaner, better, faster, cheaper, and safer, doesn't replace the need for lithium. It complements lithium batteries by providing a source for all that energy going into the batteries. There is no way a "carbon neutral" fuel can serve as an adequate substitute for nuclear energy + lithium batteries. For starters, carbon-neutral carbon fuels don't exist. When fuel containing any amount of carbon is burned, it creates carbon dioxide (that's the definition of combustion -- oxidation of the carbon). There is only one possible thermodynamic process involving enough energy to extract that carbon back from the atomsphere: photosynthesis. So basically you have to grow plants and turn them into fuel. But growing plants at industrial scale requires petrochemical fertilizers, and is far from carbon-neutral. Secondly, even if we did magically create carbon-neutral fuel, combustion is inherently a highly polluting activity. The non-CO2 pollutants emitted by cars are devastating to human health. Combustion pollutants kill about 100000 times more people than nuclear accidents. Even if you include deliberate nuclear strikes in the latter count, combustion pollutants are still 1000 times deadlier. Clean fuel does not eliminate combustion pollutants: poisons such as nitrogen dioxide are produced whenever anything is burned in air containing nitrogen.

@@realitycheck908 Basically you can't put a nuclear reactor in a car engine. Well, you can, and the car would work, but it would also kill everyone in a 10 mile radius from radiation poisoning. Nuclear reactors require thick shielding, which is possible in a power plant or an aircraft carrier, but not on a car. Also it would be stupidly expensive. So you still need lithium batteries for cars.

Thank you for mentioning carbon neutral liquid and gaseous fuels. Seriously. I work on the engineering side of energy conversion/storage, and I'm pretty dismayed that so many of our leaders are treating battery-electric as some sort of fix-all silver bullet solution. Thing is, energy storage via battery has very real issues of its own, many of which are pretty inherent. So, rather than try to shoehorn battery-electric into every conceivable application, I would really like to see our leaders get a bit smarter with their green energy policies, policies which will only be poised to create sustainability problems of their own if we don't distribute the energy storage burden among a diverse array of technologies. My take: such diversification would be very well served by including a decently sized fraction of synfuel ICE and hydrogen ICE.

@@briank4972 100%! Couldn't have said it better myself.

@@realitycheck908 Nuclear Fusion actually complicates the lithium picture in a very significant way as the reactor technologies in development which are based off fusing deuterium with tritium due to the very short half live of tritium are dependent on the use of neutron bombarding Lithium as a source for more tritium to continue fueling their reactors. This process only works so long as there is a supply of lithium to transmute and thus if this kind of nuclear fusion materializes as a means of energy production lithium becomes the limiting reagent for fusion power based off fusing tritium and deuterium. This notably is a 100% destructive process for lithium and there is no way to replenish this element so it is not compatible with lithium battery storage because it needs that lithium for fuel.

Desalination is extremely energy intensive and solar does not have the dynamic range to power a desal plant reliably. More over being next to the ocean usually means more clouds and fog. Nuclear is a far better option for desalination as it could provide both fresh water, mineral extract, and electricity.

Transporting fresh water is not easy and the energy might make more money doing something else other than desalination?

We quite certainly won't "perfect" fusion power before 2035 (the horizon of most of this video). And even if we do it does not mean that fusion power will necessary be much cheaper than other sources of energy (we can't know yet).

With thorium we would have 1000s of years of power left. We have the tech now to have virtually unlimited energy

Lithium is incredibly plentiful... And it is an element that we are not burning as a fuel, what we have already mined is more easy to access and refine again from recycled material than it is to mine and refine new material... And, yes there are different chemistries coming, already in use, I am simply pointing out that lithium is not the limiting factor...

Silicon is one of the most abundant elements on earth, just like lithium. Silicon just lies around as sand in deserts. But the largest amount is not used in chip production, but in the production of solar cells.

That is true, but extracting silicon and refining it to the level of pureness it's needed, is a very complicated and energie intensive matter. Still you're correct, but I meant it more in a "Demald will far outstrip supply" kind of way.

@@BMXaster I'm a bit more "optimistic" and trust in capitalism to never let demand outstrip supply. But we'll see.

I think the electrical grid is not the big problem, as most EVs can charge at night where there is less demand overall on the grid.

Norway has the highest % of EV sales in the world, basically all new car sales are EVs some months... Very spread out and very cold... Is it not harder to find gas stations in remote spaces as well? Many gas stations are dropping gas and switching to only electric charging, the busiest gas station for Shell in the UK was switched over to only electric chargers and they improved their profits within a month. More gas stations will fail or switch as there is less and less demand for gas. (gas car sales have been dropping like crazy the last few years). We are just a few years away from gas cars being the ones with range anxiety, trying to find a gas station... Regular electrical outlets to use in an emergency are already way more spread out than gas stations... As for the grids, UK grid did a survey and found that their current grid would be fine even if all cars were electric right now... It will actually help balance the grid as most car charging would be done when there is less electrical use, help smooth out the spikes and dips...

The batterys goes to a "second life" when they can no longer b used in the EVs, they can collect energy from solar powers and recharge your EV. That means that there are less batterys to recycle and when the recyclers dont get any batterys they market will suffer. All recycling need a crazy amount of energy. The demand will skyrocket so i have already amning towards buying lithium shares. The other problem is that Lithium aint the only rare metal in the battery. I cant really see the future in EVs. it must be something else thats more sustainable and need less energy to manufacture..

Static batteries like PowerWalls or Mega Packs don't need to be light, so heavier (and cheaper) elements than Lithium can be used.

lol solar and wind are not able to handle world energy needs, not even close

Stationary storage can and does already use different cell chemistries since energy density is not as important as in a moving vehicle.

Thanks, I tried to avoid injecting anything political here but I would agree that depending solely on EVs isn’t enough

Also ride/car sharing needs to be managed and private car ownership reduced.

Such a policy requires vision, courage, and intelligence, and is therefore doomed to fail in any democracy.

Batteries are lasting so long (basically most will never drop below 81% of original capacity even after millions of miles worth of charging and discharging) and have so much demand as second use that there is not enough for recycling companies that already exist and are trying to grow... Obviously that will change as batteries get ever older ad more plentiful, but for now, the recyclers that exist would be able to use and would love to have access to more batteries to recycle...

Maybe I'm wrong, but super-capacitors only seem to be an addition in improving EVs, etc., thus maybe slightly reducing demand for batteries.

The higher the electricity price goes, the quicker we switch into renewables. The shortage of natural gas is a short term pain and long term benefit.

I am a chemical engineer with 7 years of experience in the "green" hydrogen sector. I can say with certainty that you can forget about hydrogen and e-fuels for cars. Both solutions are way, way too expensive, as well as energetically inefficient. Green hydrogen production will be mopped out for decades by industry, and e-fuels can certainly be synthesized, but only for "do-or-die" applications, due to their cost. I am however with you on the topic of self-driving cars. I can't wait for my Tesla to drive itself... at least on highways, where it's so boring to drive. Unfortunately, Europe is not a priority for Tesla's FSD.

@@st-ex8506 can you provide some reasons? I'm not so well informed about these technologies. I know that Hydrogen for cars is very difficult as storage is an issue. e-Fuels could also help as we simply will not have enough Lithium resources to do more as ~30% of new vehicles as full EVs. And that will not be enough to reach the climate goals.

​@@nothingisreal6345 First, let me demonstrate that there is more than enough exploitable lithium for both electrifying the world's entire road vehicle fleet, as well as for the necessary storage for converting the all the grids to 100% renewable sources: The total battery capacity for doing the above is estimated to be 300 TWh. Assuming it is done with LFP chemistry batteries (very conservative hypothesis, as grid-storage batteries, 2/3 of the total, don't need to be lithium-based). You need, with today's technology (another conservative hypothesis) 81 g of Li per kWh of battery capacity. So, for 300 TWh, you need 300 x 10^9 * 81 = 24.3 x 10^12 g = 24.3 million metric tons. That's obviously a lot, but...the KNOWN exploitable reserves of Li were in 2020 a bit over 21 million tons, and those reserves increase every year thanks to prospecting. The US Geological Survey estimated the world's reserves at 25.5 million tons in 2010! Once all those batteries have been manufactured for the first time, the Li for the new, replacement batteries will come entirely from recycling. Now to the hydrogen/e-fuels/batteries problematic: First, e-fuels are nothing else than hydrogen reacted with CO2 to produce alkanes comparable to gasoline, diesel fuel or Jet Fuel. You first have to produce the hydrogen, than converting it to hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch process. First, the green hydrogen is expensive to produce (we'll come back to that), but the FT process is also very expensive. Without going into details, e-fuels will cost around $10/USG, just to produce. I let you judge of their economic feasibility. Then to H2 vs battery storage. Let's take 1 unit of clean renewable power, let's say 1 MWh. When using that power to produce hydrogen to then power a fuel-cell car, only 22%, or in 220 kWh, reaches the car's wheels. Let's take the very same amount of clean renewable power, but use it to recharge a BEV. In this case 73%, or 730 kWh, reaches the car's wheels. BTW, in the case of e-fuels, that efficiency is only 13% or 130 kWh. Sources for that calculation are very numerous, and differ little as to the result. Have a look at this link: insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/ But the disadvantages of hydrogen do not stop with energy efficiency, there many many others such as: - Difficult to store and transport. (hydrogen tanks are very bulky, eating into a car useful space, much more than batteries). - Dangerous to produce, transport, store and use. Hydrogen is highly explosive (at least 2 hydrogen-filling stations have already blown up, one in Norway, the other in California. - Hydrogen filling stations are VERY expensive, hence a big hurdle to generalizing them. - Fuel-cells require substantial amounts of much rarer and expensive metals (Pt and other Pt-group metals) than batteries do. With today's technology, you need 40 g of Pt per car... costing $1200 per car at today's Pt price. However, there is BY FAR not enough Pt to equip all cars with fuel cells. - Car performance: the performance of the car is limited by the fuel-cell output, not so in a BEV. The Toyota Mirai, for example, has only 155 horsepower, vs 325 for the ENTRY-LEVEL Tesla Model 3 (which is lighter than the Mirai)... not to mention the 1000+ horsepower of the Model S Plaid! - You can't refill a hydrogen FC car at home, while an EV recharges at home while you sleep. - Hydrogen is today 10-20 times more expensive per mile, than the electricity for a BEV! - I might be forgetting a few... Only advantages: a slightly longer range, and a faster refill... provided you don't have to drive an hour to find a filling station.

Other than the fact Greta is Swedish instead of Norwegian, I agree. Better to make a hefty profit on your own supply instead of consuming it yourself.

@@pace1195 i don't blame them for wanting to use all their electricity for local needs. Hydro produces more power than can often be consumed as you have to regulate water level 24x7 . I live between three monster dams. Is Greta a Swede? Huh, it seemed implied by news stories that she was Norwegian sailing out or Oslo...but maybe the eco warriors were trying to tie both into a single social outrage and US shaming. Well at least Ann Margaret was from Oslo. Now if they can just invent EV domestic airliners for rich Vikings to ride every other day.

Shhhhh dont tell that stuff, many ppl like to dream... and many are totally lost in dreams but some will feel pretty stupid when wake up.

>22% of all passenger cars on Norwegian roads were plug-ins I think this is just California being a joke that neglected its infrastructure (well okay later part applies to all of USA, thanks boomers)

Screw lithium, have you ever seen a cobalt mine? These EV acolytes have no idea the sorts of dirty, low-paid, exploitative conditions they put workers in third world countries through just to claim they're "green" and therefore better than those "dirty gas guzzlers". The cognitive dissonance is beyond astounding.

@@Poctyk Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Richer than the US. As well it's small and has a population under 6 million. That's a pretty good recipe for EV adoption. The US is a massive country with 330 million far less affluent people. Also the term Plug-ins is BS. Plug in hybrids which undoubtedly make up nearly all that number rarely actually get plugged in...Not to mention if/when EVs really start to make a dent in the percentage of ICE cars on the road we can expect electricity rates to increase dramatically and gas prices to plummet. Which will also slow the rate of EV adoption. Currently Asphalt, oil, rubber, fertilizers, plastics and thousands of other things are biproducts of Gas and Diesel production. These products will still need to be made. Which means gas will also need to be made and lower demand for gas means lower prices for gas. Lower gas prices will make ICE cars more attractive and EVs less attractive .

If that was the case manufacturers must be in their own little world of agenda to think ruling authority will mandate more power grid for the increase of EV cars. That or your random statistics and make believe stories are to be taken in a pinch of salt.

@@lepidoptera9337😜

Ideally we would not need to face a crisis to see innovation. I feel that scientists and channels like Cool Worlds are pushing the right message: think long-term, learn as much as you can, and create a better future by making changes now. We have all the information we need to move into pure electric cars, use Na batteries, etc. Lithium ion batteries can be recycled in great amounts. I agree with you that a crisis might spur us to change the current market (fossil fuels and hurting the climate). We need to support those who are pushing innovation, but not for profit. We should push for innovation for the sake of the future itself.

Yes, let's reinvent trolleys instead of just dumping the personal cars 😅

@@diffore We all will drive trucks and buses in the future instead (standard height) 😁

Correct, most big cities in Europe are transitioning away from cars for years. Same in some East Asian cities like Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, etc.

Europe is just one region & not the best example. They have a lot of built-in infrastructure for public transportation to allow that. Trying that in say Texas just doesn't achieve the same results. So. IE - It's not collapsing & isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Something he completely sidestepped. This calls into question his integrity. Failing to mention the existential problems regarding the electrical grid and it's ability to succour , meet the needs of EV's is analogous to expounding the virtues and benefits of solar panels yet ignoring the sun

UK grid did a study a couple of years ago and found that their grid at that time would be fine even if all cars were already EVs... Toyota have been spreading the fear about the grids all over the world with news pieces, fake studies, etc... EVs will even out the amount of energy used by the grid as most will be charged at night and many EVs can and are already being used as temporary stationary storage to further help balance the grid...

Rare Earths Elements are not rare, it's just that they occur is small amounts and because up until now, no one wanted them, no one has bothered to either look for them or mine them

This Li-question is related to the fact that humankind should have a plan how to survive ar least for 100000 years. All raw materials will end and mining "elsewhere"...not going to happen anytime soon. Also: there is no humankind alltogether...religion alone etc. makes real collaboration not possible. Another thing is the fact that there is at least 50% too many people. I always thing ufo coming (without seeing from earth) and their first thought is "where the fuck everybody are driving/flying etc.. ?? :)

We could solve all the problems in the world if we could transform elements lol.

@@RussianBotLvl Well. Not exactly in the direction needed for lithium but there's fusion. Or rather there might be in the future.

The video is actually generally wrong. There's already efficient recycling happening of lithium ion batteries, it's just not at a significant level yet as there's very little lithium batteries to recycle yet.

Yes, the whole thing is still mostly fossil fuel based, only we have added a new layer of complexity to it. There’s also the big question of recycling, otherwise of course we well run out. Recycling without toxifying the environment. There’s much more to say, question and consider on this topic.

@@sIXXIsDesigns I wasn’t questioning if it can be done, but rather that it should be done.