The Folly of Electrification

by Bill O’Keefe

Although Dominion Energy seems to be hedging on its 2040 goal, Virginia is still stuck with the Virginia Clean Economy Act net zero mandate and its participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which seeks to achieve an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. However, neither the General Assembly nor Dominion appear to have done the comprehensive and realistic life-cycle analysis needed to determine the realism of those commitments and their consequences.

Noted e historian and analyst Daniel Yergin has written about the challenges of meeting the demand for the essential materials needed for electrification — lithium, copper, and other minerals. As time moves on, it is becoming more clear how difficult it will be to obtain these minerals and also constrain the emissions  associated with their production. The IMF has concluded that pursuing net zero will “spur an unprecedented demand for some of the most crucial metals, leading to price spikes that could derail or delay the energy transition.”

Electrification of vehicles, charging stations, wind power, solar panels, and battery storage could lead to a doubling of demand for copper within a decade. This conclusion comes from a study of copper by S&P Global. Since copper is the “metal of electrification,” the implications are staggering.  

For decades, the world worried about the concentration of oil in the Middle East. Are any of the electrification proponents worried about the greater concentration of copper supplies — 40% from Peru and Chile? And, what about the concentration of other essential minerals like cobalt and lithium for electric car batteries — 70% in the Congo and 60% in China? Diversifying the sources of these minerals is not an easy task. Negotiating with host governments and developing a new mine can take 15 to 20 years and cost several billions of dollars. How many new mines will be needed and how accommodating will host governments be?

The rush to EVs is being driven by federal and state legislation and generous subsidies. These mandates are being predicated on the assumption that they will lead to a radical reduction in CO2 emissions. But the history of government technology mandates is not encouraging, nor are the economic distortions that they cause.

According to Mark Mills, a partner in the energy venture fund Montrose Lane and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt has to be dug up to mine the 15 pounds of lithium that equals the energy contained in one pound of oil. And, producing a “single EV battery requires the mining and processing of 250 tons of materials.” Mills also points out that the global mining and minerals sector already uses 40% of all industrial energy — oil, gas, and coal.

So, to make a valid emissions comparison, it is necessary to include these upstream emissions for both EVs and internal combustion vehicles. Have either the General Assembly or Dominion conducted such analyses? The peer-reviewed journal Energies published an article that reviewed dozens of upstream emission studies and concluded that the life-cycle emissions varied by a factor of five and that was for batteries much smaller than used by current generation EVs. This proves that with the right choice of a model and the underlying assumptions, it is possible to obtain any result that you want.

Proponents of a rapid energy transition assert that all of the technologies required for electrification will improve with time and their costs will decline.  That is a truism which avoids the hard question of over what time frame and at what cost? Large opportunity costs shouldn’t be swept aside for the environmental holy grail, especially when the U.S. has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the developed world, with every indication that it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Bill O’Keefe is a former executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute and founder of Solutions Consulting.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

53 responses to “The Folly of Electrification”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “Proponents of a rapid energy transition assert that all of the technologies required for electrification will improve with time and their costs will decline.”

    Moore’s Law applies to computer chips. Nothing else. Too many people think that any technology (e.g. batteries) will show the same price / performance gains as computer chips.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Exactly, in the not-so-distant past many venture capitalists thought that Moore’s Law applied to hoped-for chemical processes such as ethanol/fuels from wood waste. Nope, scale-up is a huge and often impossible to solve engineering problem. Congress allowed for a fallback to corn ethanol to fill the ethanol E10 gap in the event mandated cellulosic ethanol was a pipe-dream, which it was.

      But the renewable fuel law was sold to the public based on cellulosic ethanol. I have a letter somewhere from then Va. Sen Webb admonishing me that switchgrass was going to save Virginia’s economy.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      “Proponents of a rapid energy transition assert that all of the technologies required for electrification will improve with time and their costs will decline.”

      Actually that is a true statement. Processes improve over time and with scale.

      What was profound about Moore’s law was the rate of change. Density doubling roughly every 18 months so every 36 months there was a 4:1 density change that made everything that went before obsolete every 3 years.

      But, you’re right. that ain’t going to happen with batteries or most manufacturing technologies.

      It is interesting that in the IT industry Moore’s law continues to work even though it is not driven by semiconductor density like it was 50 years ago. Different aspects evolve so that cost (price/performance) of usable systems continues to decline roughly 1/3 per year. This year it may be displays, next year solid state drives, etc, etc. We will not see that with EVs anytime soon.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Fair point on the timing part of Moore’s Law. I inadvertently left that out.

        I believe that someday all cars will be electric. They will all be autonomous. I just don’t know when that day will come. Neither do the birdbrained politicians who set hard dates for this change.

        The problem with the left is that they think they can just mandate a rate of change and it will happen per their schedule.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Yes, and “poof” it will all just magically appear. About the time all electric cars become autonomous AI will have decided all us liveware is superfluous.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          Yes. We should let the market decide.

  2. Lee Faust Avatar
    Lee Faust

    Government statistics/projections can have us all run off a cliff for this folly.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Time to finally retire the penny? There’s some copper. 🙂

    There is great irony in all this. One huge problem with coal is/was the impact of the mining, and here we go with a giant move to mining which is no less and probably even more destructive. Geniuses. The same geniuses who cut down forests to make wood pellets for power plants and claim “green” credits!

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Actually not! Pennies are 97.5% Zinc since 1982 (Reagan told us Gov’t was the problem, not the solution) and 2.5% Copper. The Copper is mainly the plating on the Zinc to give the illusion of copper.:)

      Electrification is all good ideas, and virtuous, but it seems there’s very little thought about what it takes to actually get there from here. Just wave a magic wand and “poof” we’re miraculously all electric, shed of that fossil fuel stuff and beautifully green.

      My own choke point is the massive upgrade required of our energy grid to support the 500,000 charging stations already in the law. That’s in addition to all the mining required to build electric vehicles or generating capacity to make the watts to charge them. Just getting the electricity where it needs to go, in quantities needed, when it is needed is daunting,

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Ah, the good idea fairy running rampant. Just implement don’t worry about the 3rd and 4th orders.

        Some states can’t even keep their lights on at summers peak because of demand, so how exactly do they plan to operate a completely electrified infrastructure at that point as well.

      2. WayneS Avatar

        And once fossil fuels are banned, where will we get our plastic?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Most people have zero understanding of the amount of products that are derived from fossil fuels.

          Case and point, solar panels.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          From the ocean…?

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Collecting existing plastic from the ocean and landfills, and plastic recycling in general, is a path that should be pursued. However, recycling plastic is expensive and it is nowhere near 100% efficient.

            If new plastic is not being manufactured, then we will eventually run out.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I have often wondered how much plastics really contribute to climate change issues. Yes, overtime they degrade and I suppose release some of the (originally) sequestered carbon to the atmosphere and yes they are a general pollution source… but relative to other fossil fuel uses, they seem fairly carbon neutral… energy required for manufacturing ignored…

          3. WayneS Avatar

            I ran across a figure on one of the various energy-related web sites the other day that said worldwide, only 4% of crude oil production goes to making plastic.

    2. WayneS Avatar

      There is no such thing as clean cobalt…

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Next thing you know, you’ll be coming out to your EV and the darn battery will have been cut out.

        From catalytic converters to batteries, the thief will always evolve, haha.

    3. WayneS Avatar

      Based on my internet research there are currently about 7.6 million metric tons of known cobalt reserves available on this planet. Last year, worldwide, we apparently used 190,000 metric tons of cobalt.

      Assuming usage stays constant, which it won’t if we are going to make all the batteries we are talking about needing, our current worldwide cobalt reserves will be expended in 40 year.

      That is less time than known oil and gas reserves are currently predicted to last.

      Of course, additional reserves of any of the above can and probably will be found, but how can it be argued that betting our civilizations on lithium batteries is any less risky than betting it on oil and gas?

    4. WayneS Avatar

      Based on my internet research there are currently about 7.6 million metric tons of known cobalt reserves available on this planet. Last year, worldwide, we apparently used 190,000 metric tons of cobalt.

      Assuming usage stays constant, which it won’t if we are going to make all the batteries we are talking about needing, our current worldwide cobalt reserves will be expended in 40 year.

      That is less time than known oil and gas reserves are currently predicted to last.

      Of course, additional reserves of any of the above can and probably will be found, but how can it be argued that betting our civilizations on lithium batteries is any less risky than betting it on oil and gas?

    5. WayneS Avatar

      Based on my internet research there are currently about 7.6 million metric tons of known cobalt reserves available on this planet. Last year, worldwide, we apparently used 190,000 metric tons of cobalt.

      Assuming usage stays constant, which it won’t if we are going to make all the batteries we are talking about needing, our current worldwide cobalt reserves will be expended in 40 year.

      That is less time than known oil and gas reserves are currently predicted to last.

      Of course, additional reserves of any of the above can and probably will be found, but how can it be argued that betting our civilizations on lithium batteries is any less risky than betting it on oil and gas?

    6. WayneS Avatar

      Based on my internet research there are currently about 7.4-7.6 million metric tons of known, readily extractable, cobalt reserves available on this planet. Last year, worldwide, we apparently used 190,000 metric tons of cobalt.

      Assuming usage stays constant, which it cannot if we are going to make all the batteries we are talking about needing, our current worldwide cobalt reserves will be expended in 40 year.

      That is less time than known oil and gas reserves are currently predicted to last.

      Of course, additional reserves of any of the above can and probably will be found, but how can it be argued that betting our civilization on lithium batteries is any less risky than betting it on oil and gas?

      I guess we better hope someone perfects the oxygen-ion battery very soon…

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Of course, they could develop batteries that don’t use such materials…

        https://e360.yale.edu/features/alternate-ev-battery-technology

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Yeah. That’s why about 10 minutes ago I added the sentence about oxygen-ion batteries. It probably wasn’t there when you posted your response to my comment.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          It looks like the operating temperature of oxygen-ion batteries as they exist today is between 200 and 400 degrees Celsius. That’s 392 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit.

          That’s a little hot for use in a cell phone, to say the least… 😉

        3. WayneS Avatar

          Yeah. That’s why about 10 minutes ago I added the sentence about oxygen-ion batteries. It probably wasn’t there when you posted your response to my comment.

        4. WayneS Avatar

          Yeah. That’s why about 10 minutes ago I added the sentence about oxygen-ion batteries. It probably wasn’t there when you posted your response to my comment.

        5. WayneS Avatar

          It looks like the operating temperature of oxygen-ion batteries as they exist today is between 200 and 400 degrees Celsius. That’s 392 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit.

          That’s a little hot for use in a cell phone, to say the least… 😉

  4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    This was likely written before Chile announced the nationalization of its world’s largest lithium reserves currently mind by competitors SQM and Albemarle. They will be replaced by a new state-run company. What could go wrong?

    Ask Venezuela what happened when it nationalized its oil industry.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      And Mexico nationalized their lithium deposits last year didn’t they?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        There’s always Canada.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          True. I think they are third in the world in cobalt production, and as far as we know they do not use child/slave labor.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          True. I think they are third in the world in cobalt production, and as far as we know they do not use child/slave labor.

  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Here is an issue: Democrats number-one issue is climate change and hatred of US fossil fuel industry. Repubs number 1-5 issues are allowing freedom of guns, banning abortion, fighting Woke monsters, and profiteering off-of Democrat EV mandates by building battery plants etc, since blue states shun all industry. It is analogous to the past corn ethanol mandates that so many farm states wanted to see mandated. Iowa now suddenly unethical to Dems, because in a automobile, ethanol is, wait for it: combusted, Oh the terror.

    My point is since there is no middle-road energy that can be put forward by Repubs, so we are stuck with Dem orthodoxy on energy, as long as Repubs get to keep their favorite issues above. We are not really a democracy we are a mixture of extreme ideas that are fought hard for: zero fossil fuel in the case of Dems, with no effective contest really.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      There is hope. With Iowa no longer being the first primary state, maybe the pols won’t have to pander so hard to the corn lobby every 4 years.

  6. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    The concern about how “host nations” will react to the demand for critical minerals, including rare earths, calls into question of how the U.S. and its EPA, Dept of Interior, and other agencies will respond. In addition to the other offsets to carbon savings mentioned in other posts, I believe that the cutting down of trees to construct solar farms is rarely factored in.

  7. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Unfortunately we are dealing with what I call Moonshot Mentality, where all is possible, so warnings do no good.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      In general Americans want to be proactive and not left behind: we assume new tech is the way to go, sometimes to a fault. We are snake-oil dreamers at heart.

      As far as risk perception, we assign outrageous risks to things we disagree with, and we assign acceptable risk to things we agree with. We are willing to accept large risks as long as we agree with the activity and/or in control of (eg; driving, in the past, smoking). We do not want to have any risks forced down our throat involuntarily, no matter how small the risk.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      In general Americans want to be proactive and not left behind: we assume new tech is the way to go, sometimes to a fault. We are snake-oil dreamers at heart.

      As far as risk perception, we assign outrageous risks to things we disagree with, and we assign acceptable risk to things we agree with. We are willing to accept large risks as long as we agree with the activity and/or in control of (eg; driving, in the past, smoking). We do not want to have any risks forced down our throats involuntarily, no matter how small the risk.

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      In general Americans want to be proactive and not left behind: we assume new tech is the way to go, sometimes to a fault. We are snake-oil dreamers at heart.

      As far as risk perception, we assign outrageous risks to things we disagree with, and we assign acceptable risk to things we agree with. We are willing to accept large risks as long as we agree with the activity and/or in control of (eg; driving, in the past, smoking). We do not want to have any risks forced down our throats involuntarily, no matter how small the risk.

  8. Haig48 Avatar

    The high priests from the church of global warming need control. Control takes money. By monopolizing the electrification process and controlling the distribution system, politicos and their friends can take favors and restrict assets as they wish. Imagine the havoc and ruin that could be wreaked upon rural, read red, parts of the commonwealth if given the opportunity. Rggi is the roadmap.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “ Noted energy historian and analyst Daniel Yergin has written about the challenges of meeting the demand for the essential materials needed for electrification — lithium, copper, and other minerals. ”

    What does he say about meeting the demand for oil?

    If I were as wrong in my predictions on oil as many times as Yergin, I’d look for greener pastures to predict wrongly too.

    Just the latest: At the start of 2021, an interview with Daniel Yergin appeared in the Financieel Dagblad. In this interview he claims that ‘the Oil Age will not be over for a long time’. About three weeks later, both Shell and BP announced they have reached peak oil, which means that their oil production has peaked and will fall every year.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Those two things are not necessarily incompatible. It depends on the rate of reduction in oil production and one’s definition of “a long time”.

      😉

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        About which Yergin was wrong. $38/bbl is called a “yergin”.

        Stone Age didn’t end ‘cause we ran out of stones.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Stone Age didn’t end ‘cause we ran out of stones.

          Correct. It ended because humans developed better ways of making tools and growing things.

          And when alternatives to fossil fuels are demonstrably and objectively better than fossil fuels, the age of oil will end -unless we run out first.

          So, let’s keep looking for and developing alternatives, but let’s not mandate that these alternatives will be better by a date certain.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          Stone Age didn’t end ‘cause we ran out of stones.

          Correct. It ended because humans developed better ways of making tools and growing things.

          And when alternatives to fossil fuels are demonstrably and objectively better than fossil fuels, the age of oil will end -unless we run out first.

          So, let’s keep looking for and developing alternatives, but let’s not mandate that these alternatives will be better by a date certain.

        3. WayneS Avatar

          Stone Age didn’t end ‘cause we ran out of stones.

          Correct. It ended because humans developed better ways of making tools and growing things.

          And when alternatives to fossil fuels are demonstrably and objectively better than fossil fuels, the age of oil will end -unless we run out first.

          So, let’s keep looking for and developing alternatives, but let’s not mandate that these alternatives will be better by a date certain.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Mandates? Geez, a mandate comes with a penalty. There’s no penalty. It’s more carrot than stick. It’s a challenge and like all good challenges, it looks like largess.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            The people who advocated for, and passed, the Virginia Clean Economy Act said it contains mandates. Did they lie?

            Virginia is now just the fifth state in the nation to establish Low Emission Vehicle and Zero Emission Vehicle mandates as well as codifying a commitment to 100 percent clean energy. That’s leadership.

            –Elly Boehmer, state director of Environment Virginia

            Until last Sunday, Virginia, like many states in the American South, did not have any binding clean energy target. And this move to a 100 percent mandate is a particularly big deal given that the few renewable portfolio standards that have been passed in the region were typically much less ambitious than those in the West, Northeast or even the Midwest.

            –Statement by Rocky Mountain Institute, April 15, 2020.

            There are dozens more…

          3. WayneS Avatar

            The people who advocated for, and passed, the Virginia Clean Economy Act said it contains mandates. Did they lie?

            Virginia is now just the fifth state in the nation to establish Low Emission Vehicle and Zero Emission Vehicle mandates as well as codifying a commitment to 100 percent clean energy. That’s leadership.

            –Elly Boehmer, state director of Environment Virginia

            Until last Sunday, Virginia, like many states in the American South, did not have any binding clean energy target. And this move to a 100 percent mandate is a particularly big deal given that the few renewable portfolio standards that have been passed in the region were typically much less ambitious than those in the West, Northeast or even the Midwest.

            –Statement by Rocky Mountain Institute, April 15, 2020.

            There are dozens more…

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            More just threat. The last paragraph says it.

            What they really gonna do?

          5. WayneS Avatar

            They could send a sternly worded letter.

            And they could follow it up with an even more sternly worded letter.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      About three weeks later, both Shell and BP announced they have reached peak oil, which means that their oil production has peaked and will fall every year.

      Assertions that we’re reaching peak oil have been around since I was in B school long long ago. I wouldn’t put too much faith in them. Although eventually one of them will turn out to be right.

      With so many different areas and ways to be wrong it seems foolish for any of us to specialize and achieve expertise in any one area of error.

Leave a Reply