Questions on Renewables and EVs

An old friend asked for my response to three (multi-pronged) questions on renewable energy and electric transportation.  Here are my responses:

Question #1:  How long do you believe it will take until the RE technologies will be able to replace oil, natural gas and coal?  I have heard no estimates less than 10 years,  with other estimates ranging from 20 to 30 years.

Let’s begin by presenting the backdrop, i.e., that the combustion of fossil fuels is a major cause of the environmental collapse we’re facing on this planet, in the forms of climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, and large-scale damage to human health.

As I’m sure you know, replacing fossil fuels with decarbonized energy sources requires understanding the differences between each of the fossil fuels and the low-carbon alternatives, and understanding where each one fits into our civilization.

The combustion of coal is exclusively used in the generation of electricity.  The developed countries are on course to eliminating it in the coming decades, though Asia has done essentially nothing in that regard, and is actually going the wrong way. Ridding ourselves of coal is our first priority, not only for its greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and methane), but also because of its heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, selenium, and mercury, as well as a huge array of extremely toxic radioactive isotopes.

Except for islands, oil has virtually nothing to do with electricity; it’s used to power transportation.  It’s slowly yielding to electric vehicles over the next few decades, as we are all seeing. This will bring environmental benefits, as well as the reduction of international hostilities.

Natural gas has gained ground over the last decade or so, largely as a replacement for coal in electricity generation.

Solar and wind, mostly the latter, are playing an increasingly important role in phasing out fossil fuels.  Wind represents just under 10% of the U.S. grid-mix, and it’s close to half in some of the Plains states.

In most people’s minds, the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy will not happen in time to save humankind from unprecedented levels of suffering without the advancement of nuclear energy.  This, as I’m sure you know, is an issue far more controversial than wind and solar.

Germany, e.g., has at the same time both ridded itself of coal and nuclear, based on its people’s horror at what happened at Fukushima. As I told the people from the German state department when they interviewed me on the subject: You folks are not known for risk-averseness, but still you have taken what is arguably the most progressive position on this subject on the entire planet.

There are a few important uses of energy in which fossil fuels will be around for the foreseeable future, e.g., aircraft, Class 8 trucks, and ocean cargo. This is a “marathon and not a sprint,” as they say.  In short, there is no one definitive answer to your question.  A bit of this is already done, most of it is in the making, and some will require many decades.

Making market conditions more favorable will move this along more swiftly, which is the focus of the recently based climate bill: providing all members of the energy supply chain decarbonize.  My favorite mechanism for accomplishing this, the Carbon Fee and Dividend, is gaining traction in Congress.  I’ve written on it extensively.

It goes without saying that Big Oil, with the power of all its trillions of dollars and intense lobbying, stands in direct opposition to all this.  Not unlike the NRA, they force our elected officials to commit political suicide if they act in defiance, and, as I’m sure you would agree, most of our “leaders” are completely spineless.

Question #2: How would you respond to these criticisms of Electric Vehicles:  Mining the minerals for their batteries requires excavation that is performed by fossil fuel-powered machines.  The cars are 20 % or so more expensive than gas powered cars.  Their batteries wear out in 10 years, presenting a recycling problem and costing $10,000 to replace.  The power stored in the Recharging Stations is supplied 80% by fossil fuels.

There is no doubt that there is an environmental impact associated with mining cobalt and lithium.  The actual extraction process, as is the case with literally all processes in our civilization, will slowly improve over time.

The vehicles are indeed more expensive than gas- and diesel-powered cars, though at scale, this will cease to be the case. Currently, EVs are sold to people who are willing to pay extra because they like the performance and care about the environment.

Yes, the batteries do wear out, and there are both cost and environmental factors associated with that.  Recycling EV batteries is a great deal tougher than recycling our SLI (starting, lighting and ignition) lead-acid batteries.  The first thing to understand here is that old EV batteries often serve a second life as stationary energy storage, where the demand for gravimetric energy density is not a consideration.  An EV battery that initially stored 100 kWhrs that loses 20% over time will normally be replaced, but that 80 kWhr battery still has significant use in various places.

Once the battery’s life is over, it’s time for recycling, to extract and reuse the many valuable materials. Large machines shred the batteries, the start of a long process that separates plastics and ferrous materials, then lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese, using a “hydrometallurgical” process, as described here.

Increasingly, these recycled materials are used to manufacture new batteries, which reduces the amount of mining required to put new EVs on the road.

The entire process is a long way from perfect, but it will be far closer to that ideal by the time most of today’s EVs are ready for retirement.

The cleanliness of the sources of the energy used to charge EV batteries is also improving over time. Overall, right now, it’s about 60% coal and natural gas.  Many people overbuild the solar PV on their rooftops, so as to charge their EVs with sunlight.

Question #3:  Our nation was energy independent during the prior administration.  Once the Biden administration established an openly intentional obstruction of fossil fuel procurement and refinement, gas prices began to rise as did inflation.   These changes started several months prior to Putin’s war in Ukraine.  The administration tries to  repeatedly blame Putin for the rise in gas prices and inflation, refusing to accept any blame for these changes.

If the US were able to increase its oil and gas procurement and refinement, we would be a net exporter of gas and oil, creating  thousands of jobs in the US, supplying Europe with these products and hopefully reduce the need for European countries to restart their coal fired plants.

Instead, Biden is begging the  murderous, terrorist supporting countries of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela to increase their oil production to bail him out.  The oil and gas from these countries is not as clean as ours and needs to be transported in tankers which release a large amount of pollution.

I know very little about this, other than what I’ve learned from a friend of mine, Robert Rapier, who’s an extremely senior energy and financial analyst, interviewed on “60 Minutes.”

Here’s a piece he wrote a few months ago for Forbes.   In essence, he asks, “How do you define ‘energy independence?'”  His claim is that, depending on your response, either we are still energy independent, or we never have been and never will be.

I would also add that Biden is, wisely, I think, selling oil from our SPR (strategic petroleum reserve) in an effort to bring down gasoline prices.

It is also true that the Biden administration cancelled plans to build new pipelines for the transportation of crude oil.  As an environmentalist, I support the idea of putting an end to the expansion of the world’s fossil fuel infrastructure.