Electric Vehicles And The Reality Of Weather Events
“Texas power blackouts highlighted the problem for electric vehicle owners once their batteries are drained and cannot be recharged. Super-cold and super-hot temperatures hurt EV driving range and passenger comfort. ”
The climate change movement is focused on transitioning economies from dependence on fossil fuels to electricity for their power. That shift anticipates depending entirely on renewable power because it is clean, as opposed to power generated by thermal plants. A key ingredient in the clean energy transition is the switch to electric vehicles (EV) for personal transportation. EVs are thought to be clean because they do not emit carbon from their tailpipes. In fact, they do not have tailpipes. However, the idea of EVs being “super clean” compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles is based on their emissions from the tailpipe. Unfortunately, when measured against the legacy of carbon emissions generated in the EV assembly process, especially producing the battery, as well as the source of their electricity, they have large emissions’ hurdles to overcome. Those hurdles are cleared eventually as the EV is driven, assuming the electricity does come from coal and/or natural gas. Estimates are that it takes five to seven years of emissions-free driving for EVs to offset their carbon emissions legacy. Only then does the EV gain an emissions advantage over ICE vehicles.
The Texas blackouts have highlighted a challenge for EVs. When much of Texas was without power for several days, EVs would have been of limited value once their battery charge was used up. Lacking battery recharging capability, transportation for many people would have been impossible. Someone might say that driving conditions when the power was out were so bad that people remaining at home was a good thing, whether they had electricity or not. However, if people had to drive due to an emergency, they would have been unable.
Another challenge for electric vehicles that is seldom considered is the impact on their driving range due to extreme temperatures. The AAA motor club conducted a test in 2019 to evaluate the performance of EVs when temperatures deviated from a baseline of 75º. The club tested multiple EVs: the BMWi3, Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S 75d, and Volkswagen e–Golf. What the club found was that when temperatures were severely cold (20°), the average driving range for EVs fell by 12% if the vehicle was not using its cabin heater. When the heater was on, the driving range declined 41%. At the other end of the spectrum, when temperatures were extremely hot (95°), EVs operating without air conditioning saw driving range falling 4% below the baseline. When the air-conditioning was turned on, the EV’s range fell 17%.
The primary driving range impact from extreme weather falls on short trips. That is due to battery coolant as well as the cabin needing to be either heated or cooled. Once conditions stabilize, the power to sustain that environment is reduced, so driving range is less impacted on long trips. AAA reported that at 75º and a full battery charge, the Tesla Model S had an estimated driving range of 239 miles. However, in the extreme cold scenario, the driving range was reduced by 91 miles or 38%. The performance of EVs in extreme weather requires drivers to charge the EVs more frequently adding stress to the grid.
Besides the frequency of EV charging during extreme weather events, there is another aspect associated with the electrification of our economy that may become a significant issue. That is the adequacy of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals necessary for producing rechargeable batteries required to power the EV fleet, as well as nuclear power plants, wind turbines, specialized industrial magnets, along with electronic products such as computers, iPads, cell phones and DVD players, rechargeable batteries, and LED lights, among others. There are also potential national security issues associated with a limited supply of rare earth minerals. The department of defense reports that a typical F 35 jet fighter requires 900 pounds of rare earth minerals. A new nuclear submarine needs 9,200 pounds of rare earth minerals to operate. Without the ability to secure adequate supplies of these minerals, we may not be able to undertake the energy transition politicians and environmentalists’ desire.
What are rare earth minerals? There are 17 elements in the periodic table, which include cobalt, lithium, neodymium, vanadium, and gallium. These elements are found in the earth’s crust and provides unique qualities that are critical to the performance of our new technologies. While the reality is that these minerals are not as rare as many believe, their role in our present and future economy makes their availability critical, especially for the United States. Approximately 40% of the world’s rare earth minerals are found in China, but the country also performs 70% of the world’s mining and 90% of the separation and processing of the metals. The significance of China’s position with these minerals was not lost on an earlier leader of China. In 1992, Deng Xiaoping, China’s leader, commented that “the Middle East has oil; China has rare earths.”
Since then, China’s leaders and its economic planners have wondered how best to maximize the country’s role in these minerals to improve its geopolitical power. Recently, the Financial Times ran a story about Chinese officials exploring the vulnerability of the United States to a ban on rare earth minerals exports.
Over the past 25 years, China has recognized the power its position with rare earth minerals means for the future of its economy, and it has increased tenfold the funds committed to research and development to exploit his position. This investment underlies China’s desire to dominate the global EV industry, especially for low-cost EVs, just as it now accounts for 72% of the world’s solar modules and 45% of its wind turbines.
Exhibit 6. Rare Earth Minerals May Not Be As Rare As Thought SOURCE: Geopolitical Futures
According to 2018 data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. is entirely reliant on imports for its supply of rare earth minerals, with 78% of all such imports coming from China, which greatly exceeds the 6% of imports coming from Estonia, our second-largest supplier. The Department of Energy confirms that the United States “currently lacks the domestic capability to separate REE [rare earth element] concentrates into REOs [rare earth oxides] and process them into rare earth metals at a commercial scale.” Neither condition means that the United States lacks rare earth mineral deposits, but we have opted for the cheaper alternative of allowing the mining, separating and processing of these minerals to be done abroad. That reduces the pollution and eliminates the eyesores of open pit mines or underground mining risks. Out of sight; out of mind.
The lack of a commercial rare earth minerals industry in the United States puts our military at risk. The Commerce Department says that we import more than 50% of our annual consumption of 31 of the 35 minerals designated as critical by the Department of the Interior. Moreover, the United States has no domestic production of 14 critical minerals, relying completely on imports to meet demand.
This vulnerability has prompted the Defense Department recently to invest $30 million to help fund construction of a light rare earth element processing plant to be built in Hondo, Texas. The plant will be built by Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths, a significant global processor with operations in Australia and Malaysia. The Hondo plant is expected to produce about 5,000 tons a year of earth products including 1,250 tons of neodymium praseodymium (NdPr), which is critical to the electrification of mobility and the economic performance of wind turbines. Due to the growth of these industries, as well as other industrial and consumer markets depending on batteries, projections call for serious shortages of most rare earth minerals.
Exhibit 7. Without New Mines - A Difficult Minerals Future SOURCE: Benchmark Minerals
When we examine the rare earth minerals market outlook, there is no doubt investment is needed to exploit the world’s many deposits, as well as construct separation and processing plants. What has escaped recognition by many analysts and policymakers is that while the role of China in the global rare earth minerals industry is visible, the country’s control of deposits, mines and processing plants around the world is not well known. For example, in Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has about 60% of the world’s mined cobalt. China, through state-owned-enterprises, has invested in and owns at least 12 cobalt mines in the DRC, which accounts for about 86% of that nation’s exports.
Just as the DRC dominates the world’s cobalt business, Guinea dominates bauxite, with around 35% of the world’s reserves, while production of the mineral accounts for 34% of the country’s exports. China loaned the Guinea government $20 billion in 2017 as part of a 20-year plan to encourage the development of that country’s mining sector. This gives China a strategic advantage in this mineral. These two examples demonstrate how China’s long-term economic plan centers on the ability of the country to sustain its current commercial advantage with respect to these rare earth minerals as it executes its strategy to dominate the EV and other industries dependent on these minerals.
Exhibit 8. Mountain Pass, California Rare Earth Minerals Mine SOURCE: MP Minerals
As governments around the world rush to decarbonize their economies, the ability for total electrification depends on the ability to develop commercially viable supplies of rare earth minerals. For environmentalists and politicians, they may be forced to accept a growing mining industry, something these people abhor. Pictured is a mine in Mountain Pass, California, the only currently active rare earth minerals mine in the United States. Our clean energy future will result in unintended consequences that have yet to be thought about – more mines is one example. Maybe we should pause and think about the consequences of the decisions we are making before we go down paths that will prove expensive, disruptive and produce potentially worse environmental outcomes.