Lithium Ion batteries again

[Dustydog]

This morning at 1000h I drove 7.3 miles of which 57% was electric and with 57.5mpg. Mix of rural A road and urban roads at each end of the route. I cannot think of any of my previous ICE petrol that would have given such mpg. My Nissan Note 1.5 turbo diesel could have done, and our current 1.25 petrol Rio would probably have achieved very near to 50 mpg. But those two cars aren’t comparable to a larger 2.5 litre petrol hybrid, and I’ve not changed my driving habits to pander to the hybrid.

I did more on my bike around the South Cerney lakes this morning, absolutely free🤪🤪.

Do you have any figures for longer distances? Just interested , nothing else and no more ICE v EV please. We all know the numerous pros and cons for both😉😎

 

[otherclive]

I did more on my bike around the South Cerney lakes this morning, absolutely free🤪🤪.

Do you have any figures for longer distances? Just interested , nothing else and no more ICE v EV please. We all know the numerous pros and cons for both😉😎

Noted, but can you get a haircut from a Kurdish, or any other barber around those lakes?

Off to Cumbria soon so should have figures for trip using M4,M5,M6 up to Junction 36, then A590. See f I can set menu for the trip involving stops without it resetting each time.

 

[Tobes]

Same for any EV!

Well, no. The "tank" on any EV was built once, and has almost zero mass to move to fill it. The electricity for mine comes from my solar panels (built once 13 years ago) or from the grid (today's electricity mix includes just 12% gas).

But that's beside the point. You are asking if a hybrid is more or less efficient than a non-hybrid. The answer is "yes, it is". If you want to understand if the manufacturing cost is worth while, you need to determine your base line and the parameters against which you want to measure.

One possible base line is "mass of material moved to build and support the car during its life time". Pretending that other than the battery & motor a hybrid and non-hybrid weigh the same, and if you imagine that the battery weighs 50kg, and the whole hybrid system is perhaps 75kg, you have to save 75kg of moved mass over the cars life.

Ignoring distance moved for battery and fuel for now.

75kg is the same weight as 100l or 22gallons of petrol. If the car has a lifetime of 200,000 miles, at 40mpg it will use 5000 gallons of petrol. To save the extra 22gallons of fuel it needs to achieve the same 200,000 miles in 4978 gallons, or at 40.176 mpg, a marginal improvement that is absolutely inside the reported benefits by members here.

Now - we can add in the fact that the battery was made in say China, or maybe in Japan for a Lexus. We can look at the saving by examining tonne-miles for the elements.

London to Tokyo is about 6,000 (direct line) miles. So the battery adds 75kg x 6000 miles , 45 tonne-miles to the car.
But the fuel comes from somewhere too - mainly from the North Sea. Let's imagine that on average it comes from about half way between Aberdeen and Stavanger, and has to go to Elesmere port; About 370 (direct line) miles (we will ignore for now the delivery to your local petrol station).
The 5000 gallons weighs 16.875 tonnes (5000*4.5*.75/1000), but has a movement weight of 16.875 tonnes *370 miles, or 6243 tonne-miles.

Let's pretend that the hybrid system gets just 1mpg improvement, from 40mpg to 41mpg over the life of the car. The 200,000 mile life now takes just 4878 gallons of petrol, a saving of 122gallons.

That works out at a mass moved save of 152 tonne miles, or nearly 3 times that of the battery for a 1mpg saving.

So if you are worried about the cost of moving the battery from its manufacture to the place where it will be used; don't. It's trivial when compared to the cost savings it brings in moving less fuel, and a rounding error (two orders of magnitude different) when it comes the cost of moving the total fuel for the car.

 

[Dustydog]

Noted, but can you get a haircut from a Kurdish, or any other barber around those lakes?

Only a group of lady natural water swimmers 😛.
Enjoy Cumbria . Maybe just one tankful 😉

 

[ProfJohnL]

...
The Honda and the Lexus are hauling around a great big heavy dirty batteries and the mpg is penalised. If they did not have the battery I suspect that mpg will be about the same or maybe better. The reason why they currently do 38mpg is because the battery kicks in giving inflated readings for mpg. Hence my other thread.

Others have eloquently and decisively covered the differences and reasons for the better efficiency of hybrids over solo ice vehicles, but you have again raised the concern about the environmental impact of building batteries and implying they're "dirtier" than an ICE only vehicle.

As has been explained to you on numerous occasions previously, whilst building an EV may produce more negative environmental issues than for a pure ICE vehicle, when you take into account the whole life environmental issues of running a car, the overall balance and impact on the environment changes quite dramatically in favour of EV' over ICE. Once an EV has been constructed, the car adds very little to the negative environmental balance, becasue it has zero tail pipe emissions.

Of course as long as some electrical power is generated using fossil fuels, there will be some ongoing emissions. But there is an increasing proportion of electrical energy that is produced by renewables which is constantly reducing the emissions associated with running an EV.

However Power generation at scale even in a fossil fuelled grid generator is significantly cleaner and more efficient, at producing usable electrical energy than burning liqud fossil fuels directly in an ICE vehicle, so mile for mile the power station emissions to run an EV over 100miles are significantly lower (and contain far less aggressive chemical compositions caused by burning fuel under pressure) than for the equivalent ICE vehicle run over 100miles.

And its that fact that EV's use a cleaner energy system over the life of the vehicle that tips the whole life environmental balance decisively in favour of EV's

There are other factors which also enable EV's to be cleaner than ICE. Burning fuel is not the only source of environmentally harmful emissions. Throughout the life of an ICE vehicle, it will face the need for several oil changes for both engine and gearbox, Plus other consumables that EV's simply do not need. EV's will have some, but for example lubrication oils are not needed in as bigger quantities as ICE, and becasue EV's are not getting anywhere near as hot as ICE engines, the lubrication oils do not need to be changed as frequently. Brake fluids will be similar between the genres, but becasue EV's tend to have regenerative breaking brake pads and shoes last longer and produce less particulates over the life of the vehicle. Overall this means ICE's end up producing far more waste materials throughout the life of the cars.

Then we have the issue of how ICE get their fossil fuels, You have to consider the cost and damage to the environment and the energy used for prospecting , developing extraction facilities, transport of crude fuels, refining , storage, delivery to fuel stations, the costs of running those service stations. These are significant, and are often forgotten when looking at relative impacts. of ownership.

There is very broad scientific agreement about the acceleration of climatic changes around the world tracking very accurately the rate of extraction and use of fossil based fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution through to the present day.

It has to acknowledged that where fossil fuels are used to generate grid electricity, some of those cost and environmental challenges apply to both ICE and EV's ,but EV's don't need refined fuel storage, and transportation costs and fuel stations in the same way as ICE. Thanks to the National grid which can allow easy home charging, and the placement of many (and many more) public chargers.

As the availability of renewable generation improves, the environmental impact of EV's will continue to diminish. They will never be completely net zero, but they will be many times better than ICE. And also with renewables, will will not be diminishing the finite resources like fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels probably wont completely disappear, there are some applications where they are the only solution, but they will increase in price and become less available except for special specific purposes.

Fundamentally EV batteries are over the life of a vehicle cleaner than the ICE alternative of continually xtracting fossil fuels which you can only use once and their gone.

 

[Dustydog]

Very eloquent Prof.👍

Just to keep the balance how do you view Carbon parity , the timescales for achieving parity and the long term effects of all the post lithium mining pollution other than the CO2.

The black lithium lakes spoiling natural water courses and the ecology remains a long term problem that gets swept under the carpet.

I suspect the EV "tailpipe" pollution etc will become cleaner than the ICE after a. couple of years ?

Long term the ability to charge at home will remain an issue.

Today whist it all looks rosy perhaps it's a bit like the worm in the bud🤔

Finally this months PCv tells of the new I Instavolt towing drive through chargers on the A34 and the Yorkshire to Glasgow route. Expensive??

 

[ProfJohnL]

Very eloquent Prof.👍

Just to keep the balance how do you view Carbon parity , the timescales for achieving parity and the long term effects of all the post lithium mining pollution other than the CO2.

How do you define parity?

The fact is as long as there are humans alive on the earth, we will almost certainly release more Carbon than is naturally caught and locked away by nature. So I don't think we will ever achieve true parity, but we can and in my mind should reduce our insatiable appetite for using more energy than we need, and that in turn will reduce the excess emissions we produce. We won't/can't/ shouldn't stop climate change but we can reduce our influence on how quickly it is accelerating to bring it back into a more natural rhythm.

The black lithium lakes spoiling natural water courses and the ecology remains a long term problem that gets swept under the carpet.

I in no way am advocating allowing bad practices to be allowed to continue or to increase. we should be putting as much effort into cleaning up these issues as we are into developing better vehicles. however Lithium is not the first time we have seen issues like this. We should also be calling out the fossil fuel and mineral industry over the vast destructions they have lorded over in the past, Even today our UK water companies are consciously allowing foul water to contaminate water courses, What about Fracking, and oil shale removal, Stone quarries, and land fill sites.

I suspect the EV "tailpipe" pollution etc will become cleaner than the ICE after a. couple of years ?

I believe this is already the case. We have become anesthetised to scale of all emissions from personal transport, so the level is quite high, and I believe EV's have easily slipped under the whole life emissions of ICE in the UK and also in China where they have had a far more aggressive electrification policy than most of the world powers.

Long term the ability to charge at home will remain an issue.

I disagree, With the present day technology there is a proportion of the UK's population who cannot realistically charge at home. That may be a continuing truth, but necessity is the mother of invention, and those who can't charge at home will discover alternative ways to manage the situation. So it may not be home charging but some other approach which has not yet been invented. There was never an equivalent of home charging during the ICE reign!

Today whist it all looks rosy perhaps it's a bit like the worm in the bud🤔

I think I am justified in having a realistic perception of the subject. If you consider the dire predictions that many people had about EV's just 5 years ago and look at the progress up to today, its quite astounding how perceptions have changed. We have seen some contributors to this forum who stated they would never entertain the idea of an EV (inc. Hybrids) yet we read of some who happed switched, it may only be to a hybrid.

It took half a century for the ICE car to become transport for the masses, and its still developing having passed the century, so when you look at the progress from just 15 years ago, when EV's were lucky to to 100 mile range, to models to day easily achieving 200 miles range, and in a few cases over 300miles. That is progress, and there is a Tsunami of experimentation and development taking place to extend range further, and to shorten charging times . Just today I spotted this:-

"BYD's Super e-Platform and CATL's new battery cells are enabling EVs to charge to add significant range in just five minutes. BYD's "megawatt" charging system can add around 400 kilometers (250 miles) of range in five minutes." Now that's much closer to the ICE experience which seems to be benchmark many people are holding out for.

Have we become too comfortable with abundant low cost (high environmental impact )energy?

Can we afford to hold out for a perfect like for like personal transport system?

Or should we anticipating and adopting different strategies to cover our future transport needs and desires?

 

[Dustydog]

How do you define parity?

The point in time and space where the EV pollution actually becomes less than an ICE . Some say 10 years but others 2 years or if you use 100% clean electricity like Norway a lot quicker.
We do need to see its’s not without some issues.

 

[Tobes]

The point in time and space where the EV pollution actually becomes less than an ICE . Some say 10 years but others 2 years or if you use 100% clean electricity like Norway a lot quicker.
We do need to see its’s not without some issues.

A slightly different way to look at this.

The lifetime assessment report for my next car suggests that over a (very conservative) 200,000km (124,000 mile) life, charged on EU mix electricity (with no lifetime electrical production co2 reduction built in) the total cost for materials, manufacturing, transport, charging, and end of life recycling is about 29 tonnes of CO2.

Burning 1L of petrol produces approximately 2.3kg of CO2.

29 tonnes of CO2 represents 2801 gallons of burned petrol.
At 40mpg, that’s enough petrol to drive 112,000 miles.

I.e. the entire CO2 cost of the car, manufacturing, materials fuel, transport and decommissioning of the EV car is less CO2 expensive than just the fuel of a petrol car. And that petrol car still has all the costs of manufacturing materials, transport, decommissioning, AND all the costs of drilling, refining transporting storing and pumping the fuel to be accounted for.

In other words, this is simply not a “what if” consideration any more. The difference is so stark, it’s mind blowing.

 

[Dustydog]

A slightly different way to look at this.

The lifetime assessment report for my next car suggests that over a (very conservative) 200,000km (124,000 mile) life, charged on EU mix electricity (with no lifetime electrical production co2 reduction built in) the total cost for materials, manufacturing, transport, charging, and end of life recycling is about 29 tonnes of CO2.

Burning 1L of petrol produces approximately 2.3kg of CO2.

29 tonnes of CO2 represents 2801 gallons of burned petrol.
At 40mpg, that’s enough petrol to drive 112,000 miles.

I.e. the entire CO2 cost of the car, manufacturing, materials fuel, transport and decommissioning of the EV car is less CO2 expensive than just the fuel of a petrol car. And that petrol car still has all the costs of manufacturing materials, transport, decommissioning, AND all the costs of drilling, refining transporting storing and pumping the fuel to be accounted for.

In other words, this is simply not a “what if” consideration any more. The difference is so stark, it’s mind blowing.

Thanks Tobes
But that’s just the CO2 aspect which I understand. Not sure about the other pollutants.

 

[Buckman]

Others have eloquently and decisively covered the differences and reasons for the better efficiency of hybrids over solo ice vehicles, but you have again raised the concern about the environmental impact of building batteries and implying they're "dirtier" than an ICE only vehicle.

Can you please show where I said they are dirtier than any ICE only vehicle? Please do not continue to twist my words for your benefit. All batteries have an environmental impact whether 12v or higher. All cars have an environmental impact some more than others.

Seems come of you have never come across the term "dirty" when describing something big and heavy and where it does not mean actual "dirt"! For example great big dirty car although it is spotlessly clean. OC plus others fell into that one head first!

 

[otherclive]

Can you please show where I said they are dirtier than any ICE only vehicle? Please do not continue to twist my words for your benefit. All batteries have an environmental impact whether 12v or higher. All cars have an environmental impact some more than others.

Seems come of you have never come across the term "dirty" when describing something big and heavy and where it does not mean actual "dirt"! For example great big dirty car although it is spotlessly clean. OC plus others fell into that one head first!

Please don’t drag me into your disputes. I’m wondering why you even bought a hybrid given your feelings over the environmental impact of traction batteries. In your post #82 “dirty” is used in the context to describe a battery’s soiled condition, not as an adjective to describe size.

 

[Mel]

Mod warning.
This thread is starting to descend into argument. Please put it back on track.
Thank you
Mel

 

[Oscarmax]

The price of lithium batteries has dropped considerably, I was looking for some new 2 x 17amp batteries for my mobility scooter on eBay £76.99 that is for a pair of sealed batteries, however on line grade A lithium 12 amp battery £69 each i.e £138 for a pair they have more usable capacity than the 17amp 50% sealed batteries less than a quarter of the weight.

I have a Fogstar lithium battery on the caravan the motor mover now works instantly rather than that slight hesitation with the standard battery.

 

[Dustydog]

I have a Fogstar lithium battery on the caravan the motor mover now works instantly rather than that slight hesitation with the standard battery.

Do you know why?
My Powrtouch is soft start and performs perfectly either way the LA Numax 120 AH

 

[ProfJohnL]

Thanks Tobes
But that’s just the CO2 aspect which I understand. Not sure about the other pollutants.

I'm sure that whilst Tobes 'and my own response (#107 my paragraph 3) was written using the CO2 model as the core of the point, But I know my own research into various studies regarding the broader issue of whole life pollution broadly and decisively suggests that EV's have a much lower pollution factor from cradle to grave compared to ICE vehicles.

Where there are some specific differences ( and you mention one - Lithium) Firstly Lithium is used for a much wider range of products than just EV's, and the issues of how its produced in a few places existed before EV's were around. but the scale was much smaller but no less polluting. As demand for lithium increased, those producers simply expanded their production models which also expanded the amounts of pollution so a small problem has become a bigger problem.

However as demand for Lithium has increased, it has it economically feasible for other producers to come on line in other places around the world, and they are using far more refined production models that do reduce the potential for damaging uncontrolled pollution. There is increasing pressure on the early producers to address their polluting processes.

But also as battery developments evolve, one of the major goals is to reduce or even eliminate the rare and expensive exotic chemicals and replace them with materials that are more abundant and not geofenced and politically controlled.

Apart from the High voltage battery, both ICE and EV's use many similar materials in their construction, but with the advent of greater environmental awareness, there are plenty of initiatives in both ICE and EV design and construction these days to minimise the impact on the environment. EV's tend to use far less oil based products compared to equivalent ICE vehicles, in particular less lubricants

I conclude EV's have always made better use of materials that negatively impact the environment, and after all that was one of the prime reasons for most government pushing for the reduction of ICE based vehicles.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The price of lithium batteries has dropped considerably, I was looking for some new 2 x 17amp batteries for my mobility scooter on eBay £76.99 that is for a pair of sealed batteries, however on line grade A lithium 12 amp battery £69 each i.e £138 for a pair they have more usable capacity than the 17amp 50% sealed batteries less than a quarter of the weight.

I have a Fogstar lithium battery on the caravan the motor mover now works instantly rather than that slight hesitation with the standard battery.

I can't see why the type of battery used provided it is correctly specified, and in good condition should affect the way a caravan mover begins to operate.

Perhaps it was the poor performance of your mover caused by a failing LA battery, that alerted you to change the battery?

 

[Tobes]

Thanks Tobes
But that’s just the CO2 aspect which I understand. Not sure about the other pollutants.

Dusty, you asked about the point in time that "parity" was reached, and suggested this was perhaps quicker in low carbon grid countries like Norway? I (perhaps mistakenly) took this to be a question of CO2 which is what a low carbon grid enables. Sorry if I missed your question.

When you say "other pollutants" are you referring to mining resource extraction for raw material? If so, I think there are two ways to look at that.

1) Per vehicle - how much raw material is used over the life cycle of the car. I discussed in #103 the mass of fuel used to drive a car 200,000 miles at 40 MPG. It's about 16 tonnes of refined petrol, which will equate to about 32 tonnes of extracted oil.
Conversely one article I found suggests 1 tonne of lithium may require around 12 tonnes of hard rock ore, but a 100kWh battery may use as little as 9kg or as much as 51kg, or about 108kg to 600kg of hard rock ore.

2) At the macro level. Globally the world produced around 4.5Bn tonnes of crude oil in 2024. In 2024, the world produced 240,000 tonnes of lithium. 4,500,000,000 vs 240,000. Just to give some additional context, iron ore extraction was estimated at 2.5 Bn tonnes, resulting in 1.6Bn tonnes of iron. Limestone for concrete, 420 Million tonnes. Copper production was 22.58 Million tonnes.

2024 global production in tonnes
4,500,000,000 Oil
1,600,000,000 Iron
420,000,000 Limestone for concrete
22,580,000 Copper
240,000 Lithium

My personal view on this, (and it's purely personal) is to focus on the areas that have the greatest impact.

 

[Dustydog]

Thank you Prof and Tobes.

Both replies add to the balance of the discussion which like a fool I started🤪.

At home whilst we are not veggie or totally organic we will not buy any meats or eggs etc where the animal husbandry is suspect eg battery hens , caged pigs etc. This is our choice and I appreciate not everyone’s purse allows for the choice luxury.

Similarly it is well documented that Lithium production in South America and China leaves a lot to be desired . The word “dirty” springs to mind🙉 That is a major stumbling block, let’s hope it improves very soon. But sadly I too use a lot of EV vehicles and tools.🙀

 

[Tobes]

Thank you Prof and Tobes.

Both replies add to the balance of the discussion which like a fool I started🤪.

At home whilst we are not veggie or totally organic we will not buy any meats or eggs etc where the animal husbandry is suspect eg battery hens , caged pigs etc. This is our choice and I appreciate not everyone’s purse allows for the choice luxury.

Similarly it is well documented that Lithium production in South America and China leaves a lot to be desired . The word “dirty” springs to mind🙉 That is a major stumbling block, let’s hope it improves very soon. But sadly I too use a lot of EV vehicles and tools.🙀

No foolishness here. I am enjoying the discourse. I find looking at the stats and numbers strangely satisfying, and it's good to check ones own beliefs with extra reading every now and then.

One of the reasons I choose to drive a Polestar is its openness on topics such as sourcing of minerals. Just as you choose your local food source (which is commendable and we try to do the same), I try and examine the source of other things in our lives. Polestar make this possible for their cars.

Materials | Polestar UK

Polestar carefully selects materials based on social and environmental impact, for greater sustainability. Take a closer look at the materials we use.

www.polestar.com

 

[Oscarmax]

I can't see why the type of battery used provided it is correctly specified, and in good condition should affect the way a caravan mover begins to operate.

Perhaps it was the poor performance of your mover caused by a failing LA battery, that alerted you to change the battery?

No both lead acid batteries were the same, this lithium seems to be more responsive.