So Puddinhead waves his wand and set’s emission standards with the goal to eliminate a massive portion of gas powered vehicles in 10 years.
This has zero chance of actually working. There’s no way the infrastructure can transition that quickly. I just read this article reporting on a paper looking at the needed supply chain.
Why are we doing this? Why not develop nuclear to replace coal and let market demand respond to better battery technology as it’s developed to drive the transition to EV?
I was at Honda motorcycle dealer yesterday and the Zero electric motorcycles were $17k.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2023/04/critical-metal-needs-rise-while-cars-trucks-decarbonize
“Monotonic growth in global demand for critical metals to 2050 is the most prevalent trend,” You said. “It’s mainly driven by the electric vehicle market penetration and battery technology development.”
If achieving a scenario where 40% of vehicles are electric by 2050, the need for lithium globally will increase 2,909% from the 2020 level. If 100% of vehicles are electric by 2050, the need for lithium more than doubles, to 7,513%.
From the years 2010 to 2050, in a scenario where all vehicles are electric, the annual demand for lithium globally increases from 747 metric tons to 2.2 million metric tons.
By mid-century, for example, the demand for nickel eclipses other critical metals, as the global need ranges from 2 million metric tons, where 40% of vehicles are electric, to 5.2 million metric tons where all vehicles are electric.
The annual demand for cobalt (ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 million metric tons) and manganese (ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 million metric tons) will rise by the same order of magnitude in 2050, according to the paper.
Currently, critical metals and minerals are centralized in politically unstable Chile, Congo, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, according to the World Bank.
“The unstable supplies of critical metals and minerals can exacerbate supply risks under surging demand,” You said.
Pages: 1 
