Over the past several weeks, I’ve been focusing on electric vehicles (EVs) and popular fallacies from doubters or skeptics who don’t believe we can build a cleaner future. This is a key battleground for fossil fuel interests and people who dismiss the seriousness of the climate emergency. So far, I have focused on naysayers, range anxiety, weighty EVs and the threat of competition. This week, I'll delve into concerns about the environmental impact of mining for battery minerals.
When battery packs replace gas tanks in your vehicle, the automotive industry and its battery suppliers will have taken a major step towards improving the circularity of their business models.
The gas tank and internal combustion engine (ICE) platform is the epitome of waste. Every week or two, we fill our tanks with single-use fuel and burn it to get around. It’s a process that wastes 80 per cent of the energy contained in the fuel while pumping exhaust fumes into our environment.
Everyone understands the efficiency improvements offered by powering an electric motor from a battery, but many people worry that the mining of lithium, cobalt and other minerals used in these batteries will also damage the environment.
The allure of money, jobs and tax revenues has consistently tempted our society to make poor choices around profit-focused resource extraction. If we simply start building roads into environmentally sensitive ecosystems and excavating massive open pits for lithium supply, then we’ve learned nothing from our past mistakes.
But there is evidence that the rapidly growing battery industry can be better than the gasoline economy it’s replacing. EV battery minerals are used for the lifetime of the vehicle. Instead of filling our cars with a liquid fuel that must be found and extracted continuously, we can harvest energy from renewable sources and fill our cars with electricity.
As we transition to an electricity-based energy system, the demand for batteries will grow exponentially, but we will also reach a point where recycled battery minerals are the preferred choice of battery manufacturers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts battery mineral demand will grow to nearly 12,000 kilotonnes per year by 2040. That will require new mining operations, but it will also reduce the amount of oil we need to extract from the Earth.
According to the IEA, the transport sector accounts for 60 per cent of global oil demand, which was around 100 million barrels of oil per day in 2023. This translates to a transport sector consumption of around 13,000 kilotonnes of non-recyclable fuel per day.
Engineer and podcaster Rosemary Barnes likes to point out that the minerals in an EV battery are 99 per cent less than the amount of gasoline consumed over the typical lifetime of a vehicle. But rather than argue about which extractive resource industry will do a better job of destroying the planet, let’s have a look at the potential for these industries to clean up their operations.
Australia supplies just over half the world’s lithium using a hard-rock mining process similar to open-pit coal or bitumen mining. It’s energy-intensive.
Chile produces about 30 per cent of the world's lithium supply using a process that extracts the mineral from underground brine deposits. Brine extraction is more time-consuming, but has about one-third of the CO2 emissions in comparison to open-pit lithium mining.
Direct lithium extraction (DLE) is a third process being developed that promises to reduce water and land use while massively cutting back CO2 emissions. Numerous companies are developing this technology to replace traditional brine extraction methods.
The battery industry is driving innovation to reduce CO2 emissions from lithium mining at the beginning of exponential growth in lithium demand. This is in stark contrast to the fossil fuel industry that is only now striving for net-zero production by 2050, a hollow promise when 70 to 80 per cent of CO2 emissions still occur when the fuel is burned.
Reducing CO2 emissions from the extraction of minerals for lithium-ion batteries is important, but it’s the recycling of those minerals that represents a ground-breaking move towards a circular economic process.
The recycling industry is still in its infancy, but it’s growing quickly. Nevada’s Redwood Materials plans to be producing anodes and cathodes for one million EV batteries annually by 2025. It has established partnerships with major automobile manufacturers Tesla and Toyota.
Although its recycling facility in Rochester, N.Y., has been put on hold due to cost overruns, Toronto-based Li-Cycle has five recycling plants already in operation. Hopefully, Li-Cycle will survive this setback and maintain a leadership role in the recycling industry.
In 2022, Hydrovolt launched Europe’s largest EV battery recycling plant and the operation is powered by 100 per cent renewable energy. Hydrovolt is a partnership between Swedish battery manufacturer Northvolt and Hydro, a Norwegian company that produces green aluminum.
In addition to the new ventures trying to capitalize on the growing market for EV battery recycling, all major EV manufacturers, including Tesla, Toyota, Volvo and Volkswagen, have plans for recycling their vehicle batteries. In 2022, Renault Group launched The Future is Neutral, a company that aims to “become the leader in industrial and European scale of the closed-loop automotive circular economy.”
The EV battery industry is an interesting example of a circular economy because there are several stages in its reuse and recycle value chain. For example, companies like B2U Storage Solutions are repurposing end-of-life (EOL) EV batteries for use in the energy storage industry.
In the very near future, EV battery giga-factories will be surrounded by an ecosystem of suppliers, including companies specializing in different phases of the recycling process. For example, logistics companies will dominate the business of collecting and transporting recovered EV batteries.
First-stage recyclers like Li-Cycle will specialize in the mechanical recovery phase that produces a black mass containing the various minerals in an EV battery. Other companies like Ascend Elements will specialize in separating out lithium, nickel, copper and other minerals from the black mass.
The transition to electric vehicles is creating new businesses and careers that can exist in any country around the world, unlike the fossil fuel industry where a few resource-rich regions enjoy all the benefits. Battery manufacturing is already a more distributed industry and recycling will reduce dependency on countries with rich lithium deposits.
The electrification of the transport sector is a long overdue reboot of an industry that emerged in 1908 with the Model T Ford. This time, there is more thought going into reducing the impacts of resource extraction and efforts are being made to build a circular economy, which eliminates waste and reduces the amount of mining required.
It’s a game-changing revolution.
Rob Miller is a retired systems engineer, formerly with General Dynamics Canada, who now volunteers with the Calgary Climate Hub and writes on behalf of Eco-Elders for Climate Action, but any opinions expressed in his work are his own.
Comments
Exciting times!
It is possible that new batteries will eventually contain 90+% recycled materials, making electric mobility truly cyclic. Every EV sold is one more step toward direct demand destruction for oil. Every EV battery recycled is one more step to capping off mining.
By that time perhaps the car / oil dependent suburbs will have become far more efficient with respect to walkable communities, transit and zoning. At that point the private car will no doubt diminish in number. However, EVs will definitely fill the transport void until the urban transformation is completed, a process that takes decades.
In the meantime, electrify, electrify, electrify.
Alex wrote: "By that time perhaps the car / oil dependent suburbs will have become far more efficient with respect to walkable communities, transit and zoning."
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
More likely, super-sprawled suburbs will become even less transit-efficient. With millions of people living even farther from the city core than they are now. Instead of suburbs sprouting up 10 miles from the city core, they will be 20 miles distant.
By what magic does super-sprawl metastasize into transit-efficient cities?
Why can't public transit, cycling, and sidewalks help "fill the transport void" until this miraculous urban transformation is completed?
Why not make every effort and investment to maximize their use?
Why invest in the problem, not the solution?
Is the decades-long transformation a reason for delay? The sooner that transformation occurs, the better, surely?
How does the urban transformation occur except by actually making it happen? The design, the investments, the political leadership, the cultural shift — all need to be happening now.
More and more drivers are facing hour-long commutes. How does it help to increase their number? How does it help to make their commutes to the city core even longer?
All these metrics are going in the wrong direction:
-Sprawl and car dependency are increasing.
-Increasing loss of farmland and habitat around cities.
-More cars and more vehicles on the road.
-People buying larger and heavier vehicles (SUVs and pickups).
-More single-passenger traffic.
-Fewer commuters taking transit.
-The number of commuters facing long commutes.
-Transit users facing longer commutes than car drivers.
-Increasing crime, violence, and general safety concerns on transit systems.
-Spiralling fares and decreasing service.
When would these trends ever reverse?
I'm still waiting for your estimate of costs and timescales for converting to a car and petroleum fuel-free suburbia.
Please stop ignoring the good work already done to elevate transit, walking, bikes and efficacious urbanism over the last 30 years.
If you claim it's inadequate to date then you really don't understand the scale of the challenge.
Alex: "I'm still waiting for your estimate of costs and timescales for converting to a car and petroleum fuel-free suburbia."
I'm still waiting for your estimate of costs and timescales for converting to a car and petroleum fuel-free suburbia — after enabling super-sprawl by promoting EVs.
Making the shift to transit now instead of untold decades from now costs a fraction of your non-plan: enabling super-sprawl by promoting EVs and trying to fix it afterwards. Super-sprawl makes efficient transit impossible.
Still waiting for you to explain how super-sprawl magically metastasizes into transit-efficient cities.
Alex: "Please stop ignoring the good work already done to elevate transit, walking, bikes and efficacious urbanism over the last 30 years."
Please stop ignoring the data. The metrics are all heading in the wrong direction. And you don't have a plan to reverse those trends. Your plan is to make a monumental challenge impossible.
Alex: "If you claim it's inadequate to date then you really don't understand the scale of the challenge."
On the contrary. The scale of the challenge makes it clear we have no time to waste. No time for delay. No time for going in the wrong direction. No time for filling our super-sprawled cities with EVs. No time for wishful thinking and empty prophecies.
StatsCan:
-Table: 23-10-0308-01: Vehicle registrations, by type of vehicle and fuel type
-Number of light-duty vehicles, by type, Canada, 2017 to 2022 (2023)
-"Commuting to work by car and public transit grows in 2023" (2023)
-"Study: Long commutes to work by car" (2019)
-"GTA: Getting there by automobile" (2023)
-Motor vehicle fuel sales, 2022
-Gross sales of gasoline in Canada, 2002 to 2022
-Sales of fuel used for road motor vehicles, annual
-"Census of Environment: Measuring settled area expansion, 2010 to 2020" (2023)
-Table: 38-10-0163-01: Extent and growth of contiguously settled areas
-"Canada's large urban centres continue to grow and spread" (2022)
-Table 1 : Top 10 contiguously settled areas with the most built-up growth on their periphery, 2010 to 2020
-Chart 3: Population density increases sharply the closer you are to downtown"
EV promoters are selling a pipedream.
Cars and sprawl are synonymous.
Advocate for EVs, and you advocate for sprawl.
Promote cars, and you promote sprawl.
More sprawl is not a solution to sprawl.
Just the opposite.
How does increasing car dependency reduce car dependency? Defies logic.
Switching from ICE cars to EVs only prolongs car culture. And postpones the switch to public transit to the day after forever.
The decisions we make now about urban design set the blueprint for generations to come. We cannot undo sprawl except at enormous cost. So let's not make it worse!
Once middle- and upper-class consumers are happily ensconced in their automobiles, there is no shifting them. There is no incentive for governments to invest in and improve transit if the vast majority vote for cars and EV subsidies.
Doubling down on cars (EVs) and sprawl makes already difficult problems intractable and puts solutions out of reach. Forever.
We have a choice. We can invest in the private automobile, car culture, and sprawl. Or we can invest in the public good: transit, cycling, and smart urban design.
Sinking public dollars into private cars just slows public transit down — and puts the only sustainable solution out of reach.
There is no evolution from more private cars and more sprawl to efficient public transit. More private cars and more sprawl do not enable efficient public transit at some future date — they make it impossible.
If the goal is efficient public transit, it is self-defeating to promote car use and enable sprawl.
The only sustainable solution is public transit. The sooner we make that shift, the better. No reason to delay.
Alex's rosy prognostications are based on wishful thinking, not on logic or data. He defines a goal without a plan.
Kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
No, thanks.
Then Vancouver's, Victoria's, Montreal's and Toronto's documented successful non-car urban initiatives over threare "wishful thing" and "fantasy."
"...over three decades..."
Data speaks louder than empty goals, non-plans, and prophecies:
More people than ever are commuting by car in Canada's big cities, including Toronto and Vancouver.
Sprawl continues to plague Canadian cities from coast to coast.
"Census of Environment: Measuring settled area expansion, 2010 to 2020" (StatsCan, 2023)
"From 2010 to 2020, built-up area growth was highest in the agglomerated CSAs of Toronto (+29 km2), Calgary (+21 km2) and Montréal (+16 km2). In addition, Edmonton (+12 km2), Winnipeg (+10 km2) and Vancouver (+10 km2) had more than 9 km2 of built-up growth on their outskirts. These six CSAs all fell within the top 10 most populated municipalities in 2021.
"Some CSAs associated with a medium population centre also saw their built-up areas grow significantly from 2010 to 2020. In British Columbia, Kamloops had 4 km2 of built-up growth in 2020, a 4% increase over its 2010 footprint, while Prince George had 3 km2, representing a 3% increase.
"Canada's large urban centres continue to grow and spread" (StatsCan, 2022)
"Rapid population growth in cities is increasing the need for infrastructure, transportation and services of all kinds—including front-line emergency services. Further urban spread also raises environmental concerns such as car-dependent cultures and encroachment on farmlands, wetlands and wildlife.'
"In Canada's three largest urban centres, the distant suburbs (30 minutes or more from downtown) grew at a faster pace than the urban fringe and suburbs closer to downtown, further evidence of the ongoing urban spread.
"Urban spread also occurred in the intermediate suburbs (20 to 30 minutes from downtown) in Edmonton (+23.4%), Calgary (+23.3%) and Ottawa (+21.4%). The growth in these intermediate suburbs largely surpassed that of their respective downtowns, urban fringes and near suburbs.'
"… urban spread continued, and was accelerating in many CMAs. Overall, suburbs farthest from downtowns were generally growing at a faster pace (+8.8%) than the urban fringe (+3.7%) and suburbs closer to downtowns (+5.8%).
"In Canada's three largest urban centres, the distant suburbs (30 minutes or more from downtown) grew at a faster pace than the urban fringe and suburbs closer to downtown, further evidence of the ongoing urban spread."
"Commuting to work by car and public transit grows in 2023" (StatsCan, 2023)
The number of car commuters in the Toronto and Vancouver census metropolitan areas in May 2023 surpasses May 2016 levels
Increases from May 2021 to May 2023 in the number of workers mainly commuting by car in the Toronto (+601,000 to 2.0 million), Montréal (+151,000 to 1.3 million) and Vancouver (+118,000 to 832,000) CMAs recouped declines recorded during the pandemic, and in May 2023, car commuting had returned to its May 2016 level in Montréal and surpassed this level in Toronto and Vancouver.
"Study: Long commutes to work by car" (StatsCan, 2019)
Many car commuters with long commute times work and live in the same area
Long duration commutes are not limited to people living outside of a major CMA. In fact, among those who worked in Toronto, Montréal or Vancouver, a majority of car commuters who reported long commute times also lived within the same CMA.
Among car commuters who worked in Toronto and reported a commuting time of at least 60 minutes, for example, 64% also lived in Toronto. These commuters took almost as long to get to work as those who came from Barrie, Oshawa or Hamilton, despite travelling a shorter distance.
Similarly, of all car commuters with a usual workplace in Vancouver who spent at least 60 minutes getting to work, 81% also lived in Vancouver. These workers took almost as long getting to work as those commuting from Abbotsford–Mission to Vancouver. [What does that say about the efficiency of public transit?]
… Of all car commuters with a usual workplace in Vancouver who spent at least 60 minutes getting to work, 81% also lived in Vancouver. These workers took almost as long getting to work as those commuting from Abbotsford–Mission to Vancouver.
"The issue of long commuting times by car, therefore, is not restricted to commuters driving into a large metropolitan area, but also includes those commuting by car within the same CMA."
"GTA: Getting there by automobile" (StatsCan, 2023)
"In May 2022, the number of car commuters in the provinces increased to 12.8 million, eclipsing the 12.5 million seen in May 2016. And for Canada’s largest urban centre, it’s still by car, by far.
"Roughly three in four (73.8%) of the nearly 1.5 million workers (aged 15 years and older) whose residence and usual workplace were within the Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA) in 2021 commuted by car, truck or van. Of those workers, almost 85% were the driver (and only worker in the vehicle). This adds up to a lot of traffic …
"About 40% more transit users (87,840) than those in automobiles (54,860) faced an average commute time of 60 minutes or more.
"For those commuting into Toronto from a neighbouring community, it was a bit more car-heavy, and on average, still faster than public transit.
"Over 9 in 10 of the 42,720 Oshawa CMA residents (90.8%) commuting westward into Toronto did so by automobile, and a roughly equal proportion of those commuters (90.3%) were the driver (and only worker in the vehicle).
"Down the QEW and around the lakeshore, just over 93% of the 36,795 commuters from the Hamilton CMA made the trip to Toronto by automobile, and over 9 in 10 (91.0%) were behind the wheel and the only worker in the vehicle.
"Roughly three in four of those commuting by public transit from Hamilton (75.8%) faced a commute time of 60 minutes or more, compared with less than one in five of those in a vehicle (17.9%).
"Even higher proportions of the 17,510 workers commuting southbound to Toronto from the Barrie CMA (97.0%) and eastbound from the Guelph CMA (96.0%) were in an automobile, and over 90% of those incoming vehicles from both CMAs had only one worker in them—the driver.
Census of Environment: Measuring settled area expansion, 2010 to 2020
Largest amount of built-up area growth took place in more highly populated areas
From 2010 to 2020, built-up area growth was highest in the agglomerated CSAs of Toronto (+29 km2), Calgary (+21 km2) and Montréal (+16 km2). In addition, Edmonton (+12 km2), Winnipeg (+10 km2) and Vancouver (+10 km2) had more than 9 km2 of built-up growth on their outskirts. These six CSAs all fell within the top 10 most populated municipalities in 2021.
Some CSAs associated with a medium population centre also saw their built-up areas grow significantly from 2010 to 2020. In British Columbia, Kamloops had 4 km2 of built-up growth in 2020, a 4% increase over its 2010 footprint, while Prince George had 3 km2, representing a 3% increase.
Canada's large urban centres continue to grow and spread (2022)
In Canada's three largest urban centres, the distant suburbs (30 minutes or more from downtown) grew at a faster pace than the urban fringe and suburbs closer to downtown, further evidence of the ongoing urban spread.
Urban spread also occurred in the intermediate suburbs (20 to 30 minutes from downtown) in Edmonton (+23.4%), Calgary (+23.3%) and Ottawa (+21.4%). The growth in these intermediate suburbs largely surpassed that of their respective downtowns, urban fringes and near suburbs."
How and when would these these trends ever be reversed, if you insist on filling super-sprawled cities with EVs for decades to come?
There are plenty of other minerals to worry about, including some involved in solar panels, but lithium in specific may well turn out not to be a big deal. The Chinese are currently pioneering cars with sodium-based batteries, which currently have slightly lower energy density than Lithium but are cheaper. Sodium is pretty easy to get your hands on, in the form of sodium chloride aka salt, so if a lot of batteries shift to sodium that would be one worry drastically reduced.
This points to a more general feature of the move to renewables and EVs--they're a set of technologies, which are still developing. What specific minerals are needed is subject to change, and if it seems a mineral will be in short supply, or too expensive, there's going to be research into alternatives. In general the push will be towards requiring fewer materials, that are cheaper and easier to extract. Hard to say just how successful it will be, whether for instance "thin film" solar panels ever get out of the lab, but we can be pretty sure the technologies won't stay completely static, and it's very likely that bottlenecks will be researched around.
Batteries are one thing, but electric motors are also progressing rapidly. Not only can we have induction motors (which use no permanent magnets), but we now have permanent magnets that don't require rare-earths. Sodium-ion batteries can use aluminium (instead of copper) for the anode substrate. That, and the move from 12V to 48V will dramatically reduce copper needs.
Great info. Kudos!