The environmental costs of EV batteries that politicians don't tend to talk about
The environmental costs of EV batteries that politicians don't tend to talk about
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."
You're viewing a single thread.
EVs are not a climate solution. You still get most of the negatives of ICE cars. However, the development of the technology is still needed. We need better battery tech. We need to figure out how to recharge batteries and how to manage their wastes.
When it comes to transport, the greenest solutions are centralized, as they substantially reduce demand of materials.the problem with centralized transportation, is that until you get it to the point where you have 24/7 coverage with small wait windows, people will still prefer a car. Why wait for a bus, when I can turn the key and go? Bonus, I don't have to deal with people or transfer.
I'd argue EVs are a solution, just not the ones the government is subsidizing.
Electric bikes and micro-mobility punch way about their weight, but are still considered niche.
If we prioritized bike lanes the same way we prioritize car lanes e-bikes would at least be playing on the same field.
The negatives of ICE cars and EVs are not comparable. EVs are an important solution against climate change, ICE pollutes much more. One lithium battery is not the same as literally 10 years of directly burning oil, the rest of the car takes the same ressources to build in both cases.
Daily reminder that "batteries are the devil and EVs pollute just as much as ICE" is pure oil industry propaganda.
You're missing my point. EVs do provide some value in their immediate offset of Carbon. No question. My point is that on a broader scale, unless we REDUCE OUR DEMAND for individual transportation, and have systems in place that can replace that need, any solution we offer is going to be hugely environmentally detrimental. if 100 people need 100 cars to live, that's still 100 cars we have to produce. If 100 people can get by on 3 busses and 15 EV scooters, we are better off.
No, I'm correcting you on things that you are presenting as ground truths. I'm not missing anything, my comment only pertains to your two first sentences which are completely false.
You can make your point without lying and being a mouthpiece for the oil industry.
More vitriol please.
How are they false? You still need metal, rubber, and plastics to make an EV, in similar quantities to create cars, because you are creating cars. There is an environmental impact associated with this.
As I said, you certainly get the C offset due to not burning fuel, and definitely helps, but it's not a be all end all solution.
As I continue to say, we need a holistic approach to the climate crisis, without oil.
I don't know why you think I'm a o&g mouthpiece, when I would happily watch those companies and Petro states beg for alms down by the river.
EVs aren't perfect but they certainly are much better imo.
A car free society is 100% the end goal but we need to transition through EVs, we simply can't cling on to gas any longer. It's going to take too long to switch for us to just ignore the impact gas has on our environment while we do so.
Both types of vehicle have their manufacturing environmental costs but there is a vast difference between the cost of a lithium battery and literally taking oil and burning it. Presenting both as having the same environmental cost is precisely the type of misinformation the oil companies are peddling.
EVs only really fix the tail pipe emissions and replace that problem with battery disposal.
Just focusing on EVs still require car centric design which wastes urban space on parking lots, promotes urban sprawl instead of density, creates toxic dust from the tires, requires energy to clear roads of snow (often includes salting the earth), and will wear out roads at a faster rate than ICE cars due to the EVs higher weight.
Yes some people will need EVs and we should develop them for those people, but building walkable cities and reliable public transit would do far more for reducing carbon/energy usage.
The battery disposal problem is on the cusp of becoming the battery recycling industry.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-li-cycle-lithium-ion-battery-recycling-industry/
Eating lunch only really fixes your hunger problem and replaces that problem with a poop problem.
Problems can be more or less hard. :P
I’d argue that the techs been here for at least a decade. In modern production EVs the only negatives are that while on a road trip you have to stop every two and a half hours for a whole twenty minutes and arguably price, through the latter is mostly just a North American thing. Better a minor inconvenience now than a perfect solution after the last coral dies.
As for mining, Australia’s lithium mines arn’t much different than any other major mines, much less the drilling and fracking needed to supply the constant consumption of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
As much as trollybuses and overhead electric trains are definitely the best solution for urban and suburban transportation, where they can and do bear cars even from a speed, comfort, and convenience standpoint, we can’t reasonably expect to relocate everyone in Canada to urban areas, and even if we did you would still need hundreds of thousands to millions of vehicles for transport, delivery, emergency, etc.
Even the small “carless” villages of Switzerland still need custom small electric vehicles, and Canada requires far longer ranges than small villages that were never connected to the road network.
As long as any of that holds true, your going to need smaller than bus vehicles, and battery electric remand the best option, and thusly I would argue that they are indeed a climate solution. Not the solution, but a solution. We could never replace what has been the foundation of the industrial world with a single alternative. There is simply too much that would need to be covered for a one size fits all solution.
I'm not suggesting a one size fits all. Individual + centralized is the way to go vs. JUST one or the other