# Electric Cars -- the Math Simply Doesn't Add Up



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> Maybe EEStor will succeed?


Time to cover up. This one should work great.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

onegreenev said:


> Time to cover up. This one should work great.


Ah, a self-portrait? 

Yes, the EEStore comment was sarcasm

The rest of it, however, should be concerning for those of us who want to see EVs catch on. This is not politics folks. If the raw materials aren't available in bulk then EVs cannot hope to be produced at levels much beyond "curiosities, and "One green EV" is about all we'll ever see.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

PhantomPholly said:


> Ah, a self-portrait?
> 
> Yes, the EEStore comment was sarcasm
> 
> The rest of it, however, should be concerning for those of us who want to see EVs catch on. This is not politics folks. If the raw materials aren't available in bulk then EVs cannot hope to be produced at levels much beyond "curiosities, and "One green EV" is about all we'll ever see.


Aaaaa yes. I am well aware of the sarcasm. The self portrait is that as well. I'd say that the RAW materials ARE available. I have 2 Green EV's. What you talking about. 


I'd like to see more.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. IMHO, the problem with current EV battery technology is it's scalability. You can make an EV that will go 40 miles that will cost equal or less to produce than an ICE equivalent and will have nearly zero maintenance cost and ROI by the time your lease is up.

From there to the mystical 100 miles range just so you can take that yearly trip to Grandma's, the cost rises exponentially. Even so, the ROI target simply moves out a couple of years -- if you're willing to drive an older car. Beyond that, you have to prefer the EV experience over ICE to justify the additional cost for the added range and ROI won't be easily achieved.

JR


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Interesting article, looks at EVs from the perspective of availability of resources needed vs. their relative scarcity and the other uses from which they would need to be diverted to build a global fleet of EVs.
> 
> Link here.


Hey Phant,

Consider the source  John Petersen has a vested interest in lead batteries and internal combustion hybrids. He badmouths Lithium batteries and EVs all the time. Production of EVs means a smaller potential market for his company's product.

Regards,

major


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Pardon my ignorance, but where are Cobalt and Nickel used in typical automotive LiFePo4 or similar batteries? As far as I know, Tesla is the only company to use the Lithium Cobalt chemistry. That may have only been in the Roadster too.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

It's all nonsense. When oil was discovered was there enough to drive a billion gas burners? No. The demand causes the supply to be sought out/researched/built.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> When oil was discovered was there enough to drive a billion gas burners? No. The demand causes the supply to be sought out/researched/built.


I'm a bit more concerned about copper. This is one material that really has no alternative. A very few very exotic motors use silver, but that's even more scarce and expensive.

Aluminum could replace copper in some non-vehicle applications, but ask anyone that has used it whether they like using it. While abundant, aluminum has very high energy costs, so it will use up more renewable energy resources in a low-carbon world. Its brittleness would I think rule it out for EV use, and many other uses.

I'm sure we could ramp up production of copper; Wikipedia says that we have 5 million years of supply if we could extract every atom. So maybe we'll find other ways to process lower grade ore, that are not too much more expensive than current methods. It also mentions Peak Copper, but that term seems unjustified.

Copper recycles very well, so maybe we'll source some copper for EVs from the radiators of scrapped ICE vehicles (and make smaller radiators for EV motors and controllers from Aluminum).

Despite all this, I believe that availability of copper has the greatest potential to influence EV penetration in the short term (short term being around 10 years, enough time to establish a demand, locate a resource, find an economic way of producing it, building the mine and finally production).

Iron is another material that has essentially no alternative in motors (though there are ironless motors, currently quite rare), but fortunately iron seems to be quite abundant.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

Iron definitely isn't a problem. And copper wire and coils use a good amount, but it does recycle and I don't see it being as big of a problem as oil.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

carbon nano tubes will get so good and cheap that copper conductors will be old school . The best systems for making nano tubes are not even known to the public , as they are of military interest .


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

My thoughts:
Overview or article in question = Lots of bad logic , poorly thought out claims , presented by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

- - - - - - - 
Bellow is my more long winded version of a critique
- - - - - - - 

#1> Consider the source of the examination:
1a> From a CPA and Lawyer , not a scientist or engineer.
1b> It's highlights from his talk at the 13th Lead Acid Battery Conference... as he tries to dis the competition.

#2> He makes from basic logical mistakes:

#2a>


> Since supply and demand must balance, we can't increase the use of scarce technology metals for one class of applications without conserving them somewhere else.
> 
> If you look at the bill of materials for HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs, you see a veritable litany of critically scarce technology metals.


This is just incorrect on a basic logic level , for several different reasons:

#2a1> Supply and Demand do not have to balance real time ... and they rarely ever actually do ... they balance more in the medium term ... in real time someone is almost always over producing supply beyond the demand , or the demand is greater than the supply ... etc ... there is no magical way to know 100% exactly what the demand will be between the time one chooses to source materials to the time after everything is built and put on the market... be it cars sitting on a dealer lot that have been built but not bought yet , or electrical power production in the grid of 1 joule more than the load... etc.

#2a2> It also incorrectly assumes that there is no possible scaling of the supply chain ... ie no way to increase the amount of supply ... not with improved science and technology ... not with more demand ... as if the supply quantities of say Cobalt are fixed ... if it were $1 per gram or $1Billion per gram somehow the supply quantities would stay exactly the same ... and would be the same weather we recycled 99% of it or 1% of it ... or weather we used technology from 30 years ago or technology 30 years from now.

#2a3> It also incorrectly assumes BEVs , PHEVs, or HEVs are all 100% dependent on the specific materials ... as if there are no possible ways to change the chemical composition of the batteries in any cost effective way ... ie if Cobalt is scare, then he's assuming all BEVs, PHEVs, HEVs, are all in trouble , as if there is no scientific nor technological way to use less Cobalt per battery pack or use other non-Cobalt materials.

#2b> Even if the #2a assumptions were correct his point of view on it is incorrect.

#2b1> The tug of war back and forth between supply and demand is what result in the price of goods ... it's already built into the price ... if an option works is the more life time cost effective one , than that price already takes into account the supply and demand side of all the pieces ... as long as it is the life time cost effective equation ... meaning all the life time fueling costs are included, etc , for the entire average life time of the product ... which is why BEVs, PHEVs, and HEVs ... are more cost effective in some contexts ... not all contexts... it is not a all looser as he incorrectly concludes.

#2b2> We spend all kinds of resources on things all the time ... things that are not cost effective ... we just want them ... Is Platinum or diamond rings cost effective? ... when does the life time cost of TV 'pay for itself'? ... how many times do people drive a car 2 or 3 miles instead of taking a bicycle or walking? ... we want what we want ... and even if it does mean conserving elsewhere that's what we do ... because we want it.

#3> His 'concern' for the amount of available Materials is not in line with the actual abundance of such materials on this planet:

#3a> His concerns about specific items like Cobalt, Nickle and Copper ... are way out of whack with actual abundance of these things Link .... There is more Cobalt , Nickle , and Copper on this planet than there is : Lead, Tin, Uranium, Silver, Mercury , Platinum , Gold , etc .... and he speaks about materials like Nickle and Copper as if they can not be recycled ... which is also incorrect.

#3b> His claim/assumption that there is 100,000 times more energy from oil for the gasoline than there is the materials in #3a ( Cobalt, Copper, Nickle ) ... is incorrect ... and common knowledge to be incorrect... not only wrong in the sense of how much there is by volume or by weight ... but it also ignores than the Cobalt, Nickle, copper and such don't stop being Cobalt, Nickle, Copper and such ... he ignores the ability to reuse things like Cobalt , Copper, Nickle ... while the oil consumed is not oil any more , the energy content has been spent ... and it would be less net energy efficient to do work by converting solar energy into oil to be converted back in things like combustion engines ... it is more energy efficient to convert and use the solar energy with batteries than it is with fossil fuels like oil ... we only use oil today because the earth had a few billion years head start on our consumption of it ... time to build up substantial amounts of it ... but weather it is 50 years or 50,000 years ... the lower energy efficiency of the fossil fuel route ultimately makes it a long term looser... so it is not 100,000 times more plentiful ... it is far less plentiful ... not even close to breaking even... on a multiple billion year life time of the planet or the solar energy from the sun ... the total of all fossil fuels on this planet is the thing that is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

#4> His claim of:


> Electric cars may be technically possible, but they will never be sustainable at relevant scale.


Is factually incorrect on several levels:

#4a> Electric cars do not need to have batteries in them he talked about ... like electric subways there are technological means of powering them without the batteries.

#4b> He is completely wrong about energy balance and sustainability:

#4b1> As pointed out above ... Cobalt is still Cobalt ... Nickle is still Nickle ... we are not transforming them into different elements ... even a used up Tesla battery pack ... can be chemically rebuilt and those elements reused , one way or the other.

#4b2> Unlike the billions of years of fossil fuels which are a vastly less energy efficient form of solar energy... and thus those fossil fuels are not sustainable long term at relevant scale ... sure we might spend the extra energy to produce some for one tiny scale application or another ... but not as a energy source.

#4b3> Even if one looks at just the prices of these things adjusted for inflation one finds that it doesn't match the articles assumptions / suggestions... Link

#4b3a> Adjusted for Inflation ... Copper today costs on average very little more than it has for the last 40 to 50 years ... we haven't seen the kind of increase that would be an indicator of a supply shortage ... sure the market fluctuates up and down short term ... but the commodity price over the last ~50 years does not show the ramp up of a supply shortage to the demand suggested in the article.

#4b3b> Adjusted for inflation ... today's average oil price on the other hand has increased to about 4x it's cost over the last ~50 years... and given the known lower net energy efficiency of fossil fuels as a solar energy source ... this increase is very likely to continue for the foreseeable future... sure there will be ups and downs ... but the net average is up.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

major said:


> Hey Phant,
> 
> Consider the source  John Petersen has a vested interest in lead batteries and internal combustion hybrids. He badmouths Lithium batteries and EVs all the time. Production of EVs means a smaller potential market for his company's product.
> 
> ...


Ok, wasn't familiar with the person and if it is truly biased I'll be a happy camper - remember I do want us moving in that direction.

So open question and forget ideology - are his facts wrong? I sincerely don't know how to research that, and that's why I posted this.

For example - it may be the reason that SOME of those materials are mined in small quantities is for exactly the reason the author states - low demand. If that is the case (i.e. there's plenty out there but not much demand), we would simply expect price to rise slightly as production spools up.

If, on the other hand, some of these materials are both critical and extremely hard to increase supply for, we will need to wait YET AGAIN for a new technology which does not require their use.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Coulomb said:


> I'm a bit more concerned about copper. This is one material that really has no alternative. A very few very exotic motors use silver, but that's even more scarce and expensive.
> 
> Aluminum could replace copper in some non-vehicle applications, but ask anyone that has used it whether they like using it. While abundant, aluminum has very high energy costs, so it will use up more renewable energy resources in a low-carbon world. Its brittleness would I think rule it out for EV use, and many other uses.
> 
> ...


I have less concern about copper. The only reason they don't make Aluminum motors today is that Copper is cheap. While Aluminum has enough resistance to make it a poor substitute for copper for transmission lines, that resistance is not so much that people haven't successfully made electric motors using it. More cooling required to be sure (expect liquid cooling) but not insurmountable. And, there is a LOT of Aluminum in the earth's crust.

Interesting trivia on Aluminum: It is more plentiful than Copper by far, but requires a lot more energy to process. For that reason, Iceland (with cheap and plentiful geothermal power) is one of the world's largest Aluminum exporters.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> I have less concern about copper. The only reason they don't make Aluminum motors today is that Copper is cheap. While Aluminum has enough resistance to make it a poor substitute for copper for transmission lines, that resistance is not so much that people haven't successfully made electric motors using it. More cooling required to be sure (expect liquid cooling) but not insurmountable. And, there is a LOT of Aluminum in the earth's crust.
> 
> Interesting trivia on Aluminum: It is more plentiful than Copper by far, but requires a lot more energy to process. For that reason, Iceland (with cheap and plentiful geothermal power) is one of the world's largest Aluminum exporters.


I share your idea of Copper not being an issue.

Not only is Aluminum much more common ... #3 most abundant element on the planet.

Some interesting bits about Copper vs Aluminum...

There is more than one way to look at electrical resistance... Copper does not always beat Aluminum... it depends on the context.

For example Due to Aluminum's much lower density ... you can have more of it than copper for the same weight ... larger cross section of wire tends to have less resistance ... so on a Ohms per Weight comparison this makes Aluminum Better than Copper or Silver ... of the three Aluminum has the lowest Ohms of resistance for a given weight.

Sense aluminum is cheaper per pound than copper or silver, it is also more cost effective to use the additional weight.

The effects of AC and fluctuating magnetic fields do not have the same effects on Aluminum ( Paramagnetic ) as they do Copper and Silver ( both Diamagnetic )... See attached example comparison of Ohms at different frequencies for two identically wound Cu and Al transformers... notice how even with the same sized wire there is a pinch where the difference in AC Resistance gets vary narrow between them ... if the transformers were wired with equal weight of Cu vs Equal Weight of Al ... instead of equal gauge cross section ... the Al would have had lower AC Ohms at the pinch instead of pinching to near the same value.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

IamIan, perhaps you should create a thread in the Motor section about aluminum vs copper in motors. I would be interested to see what the resident motor experts of the forum have to say on the subject.


----------



## DawidvC (Feb 14, 2010)

Most industrial squirrel-cage motors use aluminium in their rotors - using copper is only for fairly exotic or very high efficiencies, and is not offered by every motor manufacturer. Given That commersial EV's tend to use ac motors, That means a lot of aluminium in every motor. most Frames for the smaller motors are also aluminium, which will lead to more aluminium Than copper being used for each motor.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> IamIan, perhaps you should create a thread in the Motor section about aluminum vs copper in motors. I would be interested to see what the resident motor experts of the forum have to say on the subject.


Thanks.

But the point I was trying to make was more on topic to this thread ... about the incorrect claims made in the article in question... there are alternative materials ... and how much is available or used of a specific material fluctuates by a variety of factors and is not fixed.

In general ... I will say ... depending on the context and application ... Aluminum can potentially have better properties than either copper or silver ... but like so many things ... context matters.

I'll consider the idea of me starting such a thread in the motor section ... but I have my doubts about weather anything useful would come from it ... the properties of the materials are not new ... anyone who designs motors or transformers should already be aware of all these things ... It just seems kind of like old information to me ... and few people will design and build their own transformers and motors from scratch... so even if it was the better option for a specific context or application ... most people would still usually end up just buying what is on the market ... not custom designing and fabricating from scratch... but ... I'll consider your request.

Thread started ... We'll see I guess.
Link


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

IamIan, Your post #12 nailed it .


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

aeroscott said:


> IamIan, Your post #12 nailed it .


Thanks

Now if only I had been able to figure out how to post that in 1/4 the size of a post.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Thanks Ian


----------



## CrazyAl (May 9, 2011)

This article raises a couple of questions:

1/ The Math Simply Doesn't Add up for whom? 
I know a number of people who mainly drive electric cars and the amount of money saved on running the electric car compared to a gas car is significant. Also, the servicing cost savings are also huge.

2/ I would like to know what the article writer's share portfolio looks like? Does it contain a lot of oil shares?

3/ What about the costs involved in producing a modern gasoline engine with the thousands of parts (using a variety of materials) that go into building one.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

CrazyAl said:


> .....2/ I would like to know what the article writer's share portfolio looks like? Does it contain a lot of oil shares?


http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/search.php?searchid=567635 *

You can learn more about Mr. Petersen from the News Bot links shown on this search page. It appears that he offers investment advice fashioned around his personal agenda and financial interests.

*I guess search results won't link, so just search for "petersen".


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

JRoque said:


> Hi. IMHO, the problem with current EV battery technology is it's scalability. You can make an EV that will go 40 miles that will cost equal or less to produce than an ICE equivalent and will have nearly zero maintenance cost and ROI by the time your lease is up.
> 
> From there to the mystical 100 miles range just so you can take that yearly trip to Grandma's, the cost rises exponentially. Even so, the ROI target simply moves out a couple of years -- if you're willing to drive an older car. Beyond that, you have to prefer the EV experience over ICE to justify the additional cost for the added range and ROI won't be easily achieved.
> 
> JR


I have a VW with 36 Lithium batteries. I just purchase another 36 batteries which will double my range and the only incremental cost in addition to the batteries was some cable and aluminum for battery boxes. The motor and controller are the same. I like that scalability and my cost increased in a linear fashion not exponentially. Am I missing something or did I just luck out?


----------



## Jamie EV (Oct 3, 2012)

Rick you are my hero.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

Jamie EV said:


> Rick you are my hero.


Thanks, and by the way that gave me enough range to visit my grandma's grave which I visit infrequently. LOL


----------



## CrazyAl (May 9, 2011)

major said:


> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/search.php?searchid=567635
> 
> You can learn more about Mr. Petersen from the News Bot links shown on this search page. It appears that he offers investment advice fashioned around his personal agenda and financial interests.


I find it difficult to understand the way he writes his articles. In my opinion, "I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator." In my opinion, "It's fuzzy math."


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi.



ricklearned said:


> I have a VW with 36 Lithium batteries. I just purchase another 36 batteries which will double my range and the only incremental cost in addition to the batteries was some cable and aluminum for battery boxes. The motor and controller are the same. I like that scalability and my cost increased in a linear fashion not exponentially. Am I missing something or did I just luck out?


Note that I'm comparing OEM EVs vehicles to ICE vehicles. At about 40 miles range, EVs are cheap enough where you can replace the engine, transmission and related ICE components with EV components and not incur in significant cost differentials. But if you want your EV to go >100 miles then it makes it much more expensive than the ICE equivalent. Again, I'm talking about OEM cost claims. I believe they're blowing smoke up our skirts with their pricing but that's what they claim. 

I've posted before that anyone of us can make a 100 mile range car for about the same cost of a LEAF, even when we buy components in single quantities and at retail prices. OEMs are jacking up the price and having the taxpayer pick up the difference... but that's a rant for another thread.

JR


----------

