Let’s make one thing very, very clear: increasing the amount of rare earth metals mined and processed in the U. S. is a strategic necessity. It’s not a question of “whether”. We must. Given that this primer on why we’re content to let China dominate rare earth metal production and processing by José RodrÃguez Jr. at Jalopnik is worth a read. Here’s a snippet:
Big auto in the U.S., along with the current administration in Washington D.C., are both about to experience growing pains as we pivot to EVs. The problem of missing microprocessors can’t even start to scratch the surface of other issues electrification will run into, namely those of rare earth mining and processing.
The U.S. will now have to choose between adding much-needed mining and processing capacity for the rare earth minerals that EVs need, or risk letting other countries dominate that sector, according to a new report from the Financial Times. Adding mining capacity is a dirty endeavor, as the residents of a South Texas town articulated in the FT report, saying “Hello, more pollution.â€
Reducing pollution in the U. S. by offloading the effort to China is perverse—it doesn’t result in a net decrease in pollution but the opposite. It just puts it out of our sight and beyond our control. And it doesn’t just provide a problem for the auto industry but for the production of solar cells and wind turbines as well. If you want more EVs, solar power, and wind power and less pollution, we’ve got to be much more self-reliant on rare earth metals. Simple as that.
Given the , inevitable? pivot, to EV.
I still don’t understand the actual underlying reason for it.
I get the sales pitch, reduce pollution, less greenhouse gasses, when in actuality EV’s only move the emissions to power plants.
Some say Tesla plans to make money on recurring software updates, apps, subscriptions of some sort to Tesla owners.
I don’t quite understand that but I’d like to know the real reason for the supposed popularity of EVs.
Ford says 40,000 people have put a refundable $100 down for their electric F-150 pickup, 180 miles on a charge. If that’s anything like fuel mileage that’s the most you can get under ideal conditions. Not nearly enough.
Suspect between environmental reviews, law suits, etc, stock market manipulation, we will continue to pay whatever price China wants. As a nation, we are quite good at generating attorney fees.
“Reducing pollution in the U. S. by offloading the effort to China is perverse—it doesn’t result in a net decrease in pollution but the opposite. It just puts it out of our sight and beyond our control. And it doesn’t just provide a problem for the auto industry but for the production of solar cells and wind turbines as well. If you want more EVs, solar power, and wind power and less pollution, we’ve got to be much more self-reliant on rare earth metals. Simple as that.”
It couldn’t be said better than that. These “environmentalists,” formal or just activists, aren’t necessarily the most honest or the brightest bulbs. To wit: who says more EV’s is green? This relies on a study done long ago and reliant on some pretty rosy efficiency numbers. A more recent study taking into account the cradle to grave environmental impact of EV’s and ICE’s, and more realistic efficiencies, indicated that the upfront EV issues would need to be amortized over a life of 150,000 +/- miles for the car. Not so clear EV’s are materially better.
But. The enviros care. Oh, they so, so care. They care so much. Just ask them. They care soooooo much. So they got that going for them…………..
My own semi-informed view is that solar power, wind power, and EVs are niche solutions and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. If you’re REALLY interested in reducing carbon emissions you will
1. Do less building than practically every green plan requires. Although in fairness the experiments with zero carbon cement show some promise. But it’s still a future.
2. Embrace nuclear power. Contrary to steve’s complaint we have a huge amount of experience with small nukes. They’re called “submarines” and “aircraft carriers”.
3. Get carbon capture working practically quickly.
If you haven’t already heard, Tesla is having a problem with their environmentally friendly soybean based wiring insulation.
Seems rats and mice love it.
And no, no warranty, act of God.
And they report, Elon’s childhood nickname was Muskrat.
I don’t think you even have to caveat it. I’ve never seen a credible analysis of wind/solar/EV’s that didn’t conclude they were niche. Further, common sense tells one that. And more to the point – the acid test – if they were so great adoption would be occurring more quickly. There really isn’t political opposition. Rather, there is subsidy. As I’ve noted a number of times, solar deals come our way in waves every few years………..when they have gone bankrupt and need saviors. Not on my watch.
I don’t know much about #1. But #2 and #3 seem the best alternatives now. A significant task, but doable.
Solar/wind and EV’s?? Caring is easy. Hard nosed design and process engineering, and market disciplined financing, are hard.
Well, it IS darned tasty. I’ve heard.
And if Tesla doesn’t warrantee that, imagine the cost of re-wiring an EV .
It’s probably not worth doing. You’d be better off removing the battery and reselling it and scrapping the body.