Leclanché picks Comau to develop automated industrial-scale manufacturing lines for Li-ion battery modules for transport
Study forecasts even with modest warming, global energy demand to increase by mid-century

Leading UK scientists set out resource challenge of meeting EV targets by 2050

UK Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary program of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) recently wrote a letter to the UK Committee on Climate Change pointing out that meeting UK electric car targets for 2050 would require production of just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.

A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.

Last month, the Committee on Climate Change published a report—Net Zero: The UK’s Contribution to Stopping Global Warming—which concluded that “net zero is necessary, feasible and cost effective.” Using its scientific expertise and collection of geological specimens, the Museum is collaborating with leading researchers to identify resource and environmental implications of the transition to green energy technologies including electric cars.

The urgent need to cut CO2 emissions to secure the future of our planet is clear, but there are huge implications for our natural resources not only to produce green technologies like electric cars but keep them charged.

Over the next few decades, global supply of raw materials must drastically change to accommodate not just the UK’s transformation to a low carbon economy, but the whole world’s. Our role as scientists is to provide the evidence for how best to move towards a zero-carbon economy—society needs to understand that there is a raw material cost of going green and that both new research and investment is urgently needed for us to evaluate new ways to source these. This may include potentially considering sources much closer to where the metals are to be used.

—Prof Richard Herrington

The challenges set out in the letter are:

  • The metal resource needed to make all cars and vans electric by 2050 and all sales to be purely battery-electric by 2035. To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper.

    This represents just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

  • The worldwide impact: If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, copper output would need to more than double and cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.

  • Energy cost of metal production: This choice of vehicle comes with an energy cost too. Energy costs for cobalt production are estimated at 7000-8000 kWh for every tonne of metal produced and for copper 9000 kWh/t. The rare-earth energy costs are at least 3350 kWh/t, so for the target of all 31.5 million cars that requires 22.5 TWh of power to produce the new metals for the UK fleet, amounting to 6% of the UK’s current annual electrical usage. Extrapolated to 2 billion cars worldwide, the energy demand for extracting and processing the metals is almost 4 times the total annual UK electrical output

  • Energy cost of charging electric cars: There are implications for the electrical power generation in the UK needed to recharge these vehicles. Using figures published for current EVs (Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe), driving 252.5 billion miles uses at least 63 TWh of power. This will demand a 20% increase in UK generated electricity.

  • Challenges of using “green energy” to power electric cars: If wind farms are chosen to generate the power for the projected two billion cars at UK average usage, this requires the equivalent of a further years’ worth of total global copper supply and 10 years’ worth of global neodymium and dysprosium production to build the windfarms.

  • Solar power is also problematic: it is also resource hungry; all the photovoltaic systems currently on the market are reliant on one or more raw materials classed as “critical” or “near critical” by the EU and/ or US Department of Energy (high purity silicon, indium, tellurium, gallium) because of their natural scarcity or their recovery as minor-by-products of other commodities. With a capacity factor of only ~10%, the UK would require ~72GW of photovoltaic input to fuel the EV fleet; over five times the current installed capacity. If CdTe-type photovoltaic power is used, that would consume over thirty years of current annual tellurium supply.

Both these wind turbine and solar generation options for the added electrical power generation capacity have substantial demands for steel, aluminium, cement and glass.

The co-signatories, like Prof Herrington, are part of SoS MinErals, an interdisciplinary program of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research focusing on the science needed to sustain the security of supply of strategic minerals in a changing environment. This program falls under NERC’s sustainable use of natural resources (SUNR) strategic theme. Co-signatories are:

  • Professor Adrian Boyce, Professor of Applied Geology at The Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre

  • Paul Lusty, Team Leader for Ore Deposits and Commodities at British Geological Survey

  • Dr Bramley Murton, Associate Head of Marine Geosciences at the National Oceanography Centre

  • Dr Jonathan Naden, Science Coordination Team Lead of NERC SoS MinErals Programme, British Geological Society

  • Professor Stephen Roberts, Professor of Geology, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton

  • Associate Professor Dan Smith, Applied and Environmental Geology, University of Leicester

  • Professor Frances Wall, Professor of Applied Mineralogy at Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter

Comments

Davemart

Well, that's that then.

Nick Lyons

Another way: synthesize low-carbon liquid fuels using nuclear heat & power. Also decarbonize the grid with nuclear. The solutions are out there.

Engineer-Poet
meeting UK electric car targets for 2050 would require production of just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.

One wonders just how much this changes if

  • batteries are downsized by going PHEV, and
  • the motor technology is switched from REE-heavy PM synchronous motors to induction motors?
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.

Definitely time to take up GE's offer to build a pair of S-PRISMs to get rid of that troublesome plutonium stockpile.  They're going to need the electricity too.

Both these wind turbine and solar generation options for the added electrical power generation capacity have substantial demands for steel, aluminium, cement and glass.

Nuclear power is vastly more economical with materials.

mahonj

I would have to agree with EP, you don't need to go full EV, you could go some kind of hybrid with much less batteries required.
Increasing the power supply by 20% sounds very doable.
I'm all for the nukes, but you had better start doing the PR groundwork now.
(Wait till they have mostly forgotten "Chernobyl").
Also, you could encourage the use of electric buses and trains running on overhead power supplies.
The task here is to reduce CO2 emissions as soon as possible. You don't need to get them to zero - if you got them to 25% of what we have now, you'd be doing very well. Also, you don't need to pick a solution, just get to whatever kind of low CO2 motive power works.

Engineer-Poet
(Wait till they have mostly forgotten "Chernobyl").

Already being taken down as the farce it is.

If the public feels that it was a sufficient insult to their intelligence, now might be just the time for a push for more nuclear.

sd

Remember peal oil? It did not happen because drilling technologies improved sufficiently that the US is now producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. Improved efficiency also helped. Now the talk is about peak demand. Cobalt might be a problem but there are lithium battery chemistries that do not require cobalt. Likewise, there are motor designs that do not require rare earth magnets. Also, if you look at the long term prices of commodities, they have mostly decreased as extraction techniques have improved.

For energy, nuclear power provides reliable 24/7 power without requiring the land or the capital equipment that so-called renewables require. We currently have enough stored depleted uranium to provide over 700 years of power at the current demand in the US.

Engineer-Poet
Remember peal [sic] oil? It did not happen

Oh, it happened all right.  US production of conventional oil peaked exactly on schedule.

drilling technologies improved sufficiently that the US is now producing more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Those new drilling technologies opened a new resource.  Its production will grow, peak and fall the same way.

Guess what:  we are drilling the source rocks now; there is no deeper oil resource to hit next.  This is all there is.

there are motor designs that do not require rare earth magnets.

Rare-earth magnets are a very recent development.  Most motors NEVER used them.

We currently have enough stored depleted uranium to provide over 700 years of power at the current demand in the US.

Back in 2010 I figured only 400 years, but maybe you're right.

Our problem is:  how do we develop the people willing to think and act on the difference between a 400-year and 700-year timeline?  Because we have to, or we'll go extinct.

sd

Peak not peal which I saw right after I posted the comments. I believe that the 700 years worth of depleted uranium came from a Nova program on PBS. Anyway, we are not about to run out of uranium.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)