Replacing 'rare earths' in batteries?

Eclipse Now · April 5, 2010

Keeping in mind that the “rare earth” metals used in EV batteries and motors aren’t really rare (see post #5), and they’re currently and for the foreseeable future very efficiently recycled, I don’t think we will see a peak supply situation for them. They’ll become scarce only when and if the number of people using EVs and similar technologies becomes very high – that is, as world population grows and people in “emerging” nations use technology in an increasingly American-like manner. It’s more likely, I think, that we’ll see supply peaks in other important metals, such as copper. More critically by far, as people can always change lifestyles to curtail the use of vehicles and electricity, but can't change them to curtail eating, peak food will likely occur with dreadful effect before these other possible supply peaks. :(

Agreed, but at the risk of bringing stacks of other threads into discussion in this one, I think a combination of Seawater Greenhouses and Sky / Vertical farming, especially if combined with biochar, could be used to offset the food issues. (Seawater Greenhouses have my blood pumping almost as much as biochar did when I first discovered that.... I'm imagining vast areas of the Sahara green, providing jobs and renewable power, and feeding the Sahel).

Olduvai theory discusses at length the difficulty that future people may have in obtaining engineering metals in general, but most of this thinking assumes a “Mad Max” sort of scenario where technological civilization collapses for some time, and manufactured metals, especially iron/steel, rusts away into difficult to recover forms, so isn’t, I think, applicable to short-term future scenarios.

I discovered peak oil through a particularly doomer site back when my kid had cancer, and kind of flipped out a bit. (I had sleep deprivation and anxiety issues). The Olduvai theory really sent me round the twist. :eek_big::eek_big: The more I read about peak oil the more real and imminent it seemed, and the more chance of Olduvai happening... but now I realise that you are correct and this is not actually inevitable. In fact, the way technology is racing along and new energy systems are coming online, combined with new materials research such as nano-science, green chemistry, metal recycling, wind turbine blades from chicken feathers & soy bean glue, etc, I wonder how much longer we'll actually need to mine in the first place?

Obviously, but so key to such discussions that it bears repeating, materials used in batteries and electric motors are energy sources, in the sense that hydrocarbons like propane, gasoline, and diesel fuel are. They aren’t chemically destroyed to release energy, but mechanically and superficially chemically degraded through “wear and tear” use. And, they only store and transform energy, so require energy from the burning of fuel or some non-conventional source, such as hydro-electric, solar, or wind.

Unless some new super-cheap super-battery comes along, I'm wondering if nuclear will ultimately prove cheaper? Various Gen3 reactors could have us burning today's nuclear waste for the next 500 years without opening a single new uranium mine, reducing the waste to 10% of the mass, and making it so 'hot' that it burns itself back to safe levels in just 300 to 500 years.

But I'm a fan of renewables as well, and wouldn't rule out some techno-fix to the baseload problems.

If you have enough energy, practically any fuel becomes renewable. For example, if you’re willing to use many time more energy that you can get from the resulting fuel, you can manufacture hydrocarbon fuels from any source of carbon and hydrogen, such as [ce]CO_2[/ce] and [ce]H_2O[/ce].

So assume a 'cheap enough' renewable/nuclear non-fossil fuel electricity source, and energy efficient New Urbanist cities... or at least 'less' suburban sprawl. Are you saying we'd have enough fuel to run the airlines and maybe agriculture? (Other systems such as mining and construction can become electrified).