How much lithium is needed to replace all internal combustion engines in the world?

[ding]

I can't help it some buy into a false premise.

There will never be, well not for a few hundred years probably, "zero fossil fuel emissions". We can make major reductions in the next 20-50 years, but "zero fossil fuel emissions" is bumper sticker slogan for the yokals.

WW

I agree a fossil fuel free world based upon a low energy density technology is a false premise. The math shows why. It's the purpose of this OP.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree a fossil fuel free world based upon a low energy density technology is a false premise. The math shows why. It's the purpose of this OP.

The math is based on a false premise. See post #78 which explains why.

Continuing to argue based on a false assumption does not make your case stronger.

WW

 

[ding]

The math is based on a false premise. See post #78 which explains why.

Continuing to argue based on a false assumption does not make your case stronger.

WW

I'm not arguing anything. I'm calculating the amount of lithium required to replace all internal combustion engines with EV's. It's not a premise or an assumption. It's a calculation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not arguing anything. I'm calculating the amount of lithium required to replace all internal combustion engines with EV's. It's not a premise or an assumption. It's a calculation.

As I don't disagree with the math. However the assumption that EVs will replace 100% of ICE vehicles is a faulty assumption. Or if you prefer a correct (possibly) calculation which though has no real world value. Over time they will fit the applications where they are best suited.

Therefore the math is meaningless based on the faulty premise as it does not account for the other variables (some of which were detailed in post #78) when comparing EVs to ICE vehicles.

WW

 

[ding]

As I don't disagree with the math. However the assumption that EVs will replace 100% of ICE vehicles is a faulty assumption. Or if you prefer a correct (possibly) calculation which though has no real world value. Over time they will fit the applications where they are best suited.

Therefore the math is meaningless based on the faulty premise as it does not account for the other variables (some of which were detailed in post #78) when comparing EVs to ICE vehicles.

WW

The value of the calculation is to show the impossibility of the task. It can't be done.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Then by your math the next question should be is what will be the environmental damage by extracting that much lithium and do we have enough supply to keep on reproducing batteries after a battery has died out?

We must remember a lithium battery has a limited amount of life and if I remember correctly it is ten to twenty years is the theory that a lithium battery will last before needing replacement, so do we have enough lithium sources to keep up the replacement?

Now I do know that scientists have been working on recycling the batteries and it has shown it is possible to get a better made battery from recycled batteries but still you need to understand we will still have limited source and sooner or later we will run out of lithium and then what?

We do not plan for the reality all of our resources will dry up over time and will lead to the reality of us reverting back to what our ancestors did before the industrial revolution.

Finally, before we can discuss moving to a all electric vehicle society we must answer the limited quantities issue along with the lack of infrastructure to support such a switch…

 

[ding]

Then by your math the next question should be is what will be the environmental damage by extracting that much lithium and do we have enough supply to keep on reproducing batteries after a battery has died out?

We must remember a lithium batter has a limited amount of life and if I remember correctly it is ten to twenty years is the theory that a lithium battery will last before needing replacement, so do we have enough lithium sources to keep up the replacement?

Now I do know that scientists have been working on recycling the batteries and it has shown it is possible to get a better made battery from recycled batteries but still you need to understand we will still have limited source and sooner or later we will run out of lithium and then what?

We do not plan for the reality all of our resources will dry up over time and will lead to the reality of us reverting back to what our ancestors did before the industrial revolution.

Finally, before we can discuss moving to a all electric vehicle society we must answer the limited quantities issue along with the lack of infrastructure to support such a switch…

All great topics for future threads.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The value of the calculation is to show the impossibility of the task. It can't be done.

100% ICE replacement with EVs wasn't going to happen. Ever**.

So the math can be valid, just doesn't mean anything as it describes a result that will not happen and excludes variables that will change the outcome.

WW

**Ever = next couple of hundred years, IMHO.

 

[ding]

100% ICE replacement with EVs wasn't going to happen. Ever**.

So the math can be valid, just doesn't mean anything as it describes a result that will not happen and excludes variables that will change the outcome.

WW

**Ever = next couple of hundred years, IMHO.

I agree it's never going to happen because the math is valid and shows why it's never going to happen.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree it's never going to happen because the math is valid and shows why it's never going to happen.

No the math doesn't show it's never going because of your math, it's never going to happen because of variables that your math doesn't include.

See post #78 for a few examples, all of which impact the usage of, and demand for EVs, in addition to variables about sourcing and recycling lithium.

WW

 

[ding]

No the math doesn't show it's never going because of your math, it's never going to happen because of variables that your math doesn't include.

See post #78 for a few examples, all of which impact the usage of, and demand for, EVs in addition to variables about sourcing and recycling lithium.

W

Feel free to do your own math then.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Feel free to do your own math then.

I didn't disagree with your math.

WW

 

[ding]

I didn't disagree with your math.

WW

You literally just disagreed with it when you said my math didn't include all of the variables.

So feel free to show me your math that includes all of the missing variables.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You literally just disagreed with it when you said my math didn't include all of the variables.

So feel free to show me your math that includes all of the missing variables.

No, I said I didn't disagree with your math.

It was based on a false premise though. Your math is probably fine, however to be predictive of reality it is lacking important variables.

WW

 

[ding]

No, I said I didn't disagree with your math.

It was based on a false premise though. Your math is probably fine, however to be predictive of reality it is lacking important variables.

WW

The math isn't trying to predict what will happen. The math only predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The math isn't trying to predict what will happen. The math only predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines.

Sure you were, not in so many words, but the intent is obvious.

It's just your math doesn't mean anything (not that it's incorrect), see post #78 for why.

WW

 

[ding]

Sure you were, not in so many words, but the intent is obvious.

It's just your math doesn't mean anything (not that it's incorrect), see post #78 for why.

WW

I've seen post #78 several times. Thanks for post #78. It's a great post. I swear. But you have totally missed the point. The math predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines. So clearly the math does mean something.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've seen post #78 several times. Thanks for post #78. It's a great post. I swear. But you have totally missed the point. The math predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines. So clearly the math does mean something.

Do you believe that in the near future lithium battery powered EVs will replace all newly manufactured and existing ICE vehicles?

WW

 

[ding]

Do you believe that in the near future lithium battery powered EVs will replace all newly manufactured and existing ICE vehicles?

WW

Is there enough lithium for that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is there enough lithium for that?

View attachment 648970

If there were, do you think there would be a 100% replacement of all existing and future ICE vehicles?

WW