The environmental costs of EV batteries that politicians don't tend to talk about - eviltoast

Along with the massive recent manufacturing investments in electric vehicle (EV) technology and talks of a greener, decarbonized future, there are some not-so-green problems.

In its latest New Energy Finance report, Bloomberg News predicts there will be some 730 million EVs on the road by 2040. The year before, Bloomberg predicted half of all U.S. vehicle sales would be battery electric by 2030.

In Canada, too, there’s talk of a big economic boost with the transition to EVs — including 250,000 jobs and $48 billion a year added to the nation’s economy through the creation of a domestic supply chain.

Governments have already invested tens of billions into two EV battery manufacturing plants in southwestern Ontario. However, they come with the environmental dilemma of what to do with the millions of EV batteries when they reach the end of their life.

“The rules are non-existent,” said Mark Winfield, a professor at York University in Toronto and co-chair of the school’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. "There is nothing as we talk to agencies on both sides of the border, the federal, provincial, state levels.

“In the case of Ontario, the answer was actually that we have no intention of doing anything about this.”

  • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    There is an environmental cost to nearly everything — but the cost for virtually everything related to EVs is significantly less than those of ICE vehicles, especially in a country like Canada where over 80% of our electricity is from hydroelectric sources, and over 90% of it is from non-carbon-emitting sources.

    Yes, the batteries (today) need lithium. That’s not likely to be true moving into the future — China is already releasing an 2024 model based on a sulphur battery. However, what many people (and this article) conveniently ignore is that ICE vehicles use rare-earth metals as well. For example, very ICE vehicle uses palladium (one of the rarest metals on earth) for the catalytic converter — a rare earth metal not required in EV production. And Russia produces 40% of the global supply of palladium.

    And oil refining uses cobalt as part of the de-sulphuring process. A lot of cobalt. Over its lifetime the average ICE vehicle will use more cobalt than any EV being manufactured today.

    EV batteries are recyclable — up to 95% recyclable. But even before disposal is needed, used EV batteries can be repurposed — Nissan in Japan already resells Leaf batteries with >80% capacity as home backup and camping power packs, and elsewhere in the world used EV batteries are finding a new life as solar power generation storage. Sourcing lithium from used EV batteries cells is vastly more economical than mining for new lithium, so we’ll likely hit a steady-state where only minimal mining is required for new EVs. EV battery recycling is somewhat nascent right now as the oldest EVs are barely 12 years old, and many of those are still on the road.

    The worries about the environmental cost of EVs is vastly overstated — especially when you set them side-by-side with ICE vehicles. Anyone who unabashedly drives an ICE vehicle but then complains about how polluting EVs are is being completely disingenuous.

    • AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nissan in Japan already resells Leaf batteries with >80% capacity as home backup and camping power packs

      A buddy of mine is desperately working with grid-scale green energy companies to integrate second-life batteries into their production, to smooth out demand on the grid.

      • shawwnzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Exactly, instead of comparing EVs to ICEVs we should compare them to public transit.

        If every dollar spent on EVs was being put into LRTs and regional rail where would we be?

        Yeah we need cars in rural areas, but that’s not where most people live.

      • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not an either-or situation; we’ll always need a mix of transit capabilities.

        Besides which, transit has many of the same issues, and benefits from the same technologies. We need to remove diesel and gas busses, trams, and trains from the roads as well, often using much the same technologies the anti-EV crowd puts down passenger EVs for.

        Everything I stated for why EVs are better for the environment goes for electric driven public transit too.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Actually, it very much is an either or situation. Either we drastically reduce our consumption, and start using public transportation, or we pollute ourselves to death trying to give every human a car.

          • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You can’t have public transportation that takes everyone everywhere they need (or want) to be. Ever order food delivery? You can’t do that by bus or train. Would you expect the Presidential motorcade to switch to getting on a subway? Do you expect every plumber, electrician, landscaper, and handyman who needs a van or truck to haul their equipment from home to home to do repairs just bring 10 guys on the bus with them?

            We’ll still need passenger vehicles, full stop. Should we design cities and transit so that we need less of them? Sure — but it’s impossible to replace all of them, as public-option transport just can’t do everything we use passenger vehicles for today. Public transit is only about moving people, but sometimes those people need to drag equipment around with them, or need additional security, or have need to go somewhere where dedicated transit options aren’t financially viable — and for those cases, we still need non-polluting passenger vehicles.

              • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Well, non-polluting passenger vehicles are happening, and here in Canada by 2035 all passenger vehicles sold will (at a minimum) need to be PHEVs that can travel up to 80km on a single battery charge.

                Unless of course idiot voters bring in a Conservative government, and they remove the certainty the Liberal government has given automakers around EV sales in Canada.

                • Nudding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I don’t have high hopes for the future. We are going to emit a fuck ton of CO2 to extract all the rare earth minerals, in order to replace the insane fleet of passenger vehicles in the world, and in doing so, lock in our fate.

                  Other than a socialist wave that destroys our culture of consumerism and capitalism, I don’t see us pulling out of the nose dive.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s why our society is fucked and we deserve to crumble. Instead of real solutions, they just focused to something else they can sell us…