Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
OT, but since there's been so much discussion here's the latest Morgan Stanley estimate of BEV-ICE initial cost parity, via IEVS:
Morgan Stanley Says EVs Will Reach Price Parity With ICE By 2025
http://insideevs.com/morgan-stanley-evs-price-parity-ice-2025/

Electric cars still have a long way to go before they can be considered anywhere close to mainstream. In most areas, EV market saturation is only at 1-2 percent. Though it’s going to take a long time before this percent becomes truly measurable (in most areas), a few factors can accelerate the adoption at a much quicker rate.

Now that EV range is slowly becoming less of a contributing factor, and this stands to change drastically in the coming years, the number one factor inhibiting EV segment growth is arguably cost. People just aren’t going to buy an electric vehicle if it costs significantly more. This is especially true in an economy where gas prices are down and have been for some time. But, what if EVs were priced the same as ICE cars?

Some would argue that certain EVs have already reached price parity with gas cars if you factor in the savings on gas and maintenance, especially for those that are able to recover the entire U.S. federal EV tax rebate. Others still believe that an EV just plain costs more. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which up front costs mean a whole lot more than long term costs. Financing some ~$40,000 and then waiting for the rebate (which many people can’t get because they don’t have the tax liability) results in a high monthly payment.

People can get an ICE car cheap and have a low monthly payment, so filling the car with gas doesn’t put a huge dent in their wallet. Even if over the long term, once sitting down and figuring out the cost of gas and maintenance, they’d end up spending more, but to many, it doesn’t matter (and many people are just unwilling to do the math). This is not unlike people putting a major purchase on a credit card and paying small payments over time. They can afford the payments, even though over the life of the balance they will pay substantially more due to interest. So until EVs reach point-of-sale price parity with ICE vehicles, widespread adoption will be far off. . . .

Morgan Stanley believes that this initial price parity is not that far away. If the firm is right with their estimates, this can only be amazing news for the EV segment. The research says that we will see about one billion EVs on the road by 2050 (via Electrek):

  • “We have modelled the global car fleet out to 2050. We see global car sales growing by 50% to over 130 million a year, and expect battery electric vehicles to make up 80% of global sales by 2050. Looking at the global passenger car fleet as a whole, BEVs make up 7% of a growing fleet by 2030 in our base case, rising to 24% by 2040 and 57% by 2050. . . .”

    Our modelling of an illustrative OEM transition from ICE to BEV drivetrain suggests that price and volume pressures could push down ICE profitability sharply from 2021, as new BEV products cannibalise sales and pricing power, with potential for losses from 2028. BEV losses peak in our model in 2023 before production ramps on new model launches. The range of profitability outcomes is wide.”
Naturally, this forecast like all others should be taken with as many or few grains of salt as you feel appropriate.
 
GRA said:
OT, but since there's been so much discussion here's the latest Morgan Stanley estimate of BEV-ICE initial cost parity, via IEVS:
Feel free to link to the previous discussion in this thread concerning "initial cost parity". I'm not aware of any such discussion. Rather, the discussion has been around TCO. As WetEV said on Monday:
WetEV said:
You are moving the finish line.
Again.

As WetEV has already pointed out, BEVs already offer better TCO than ICEVs TODAY for some applications. I will point out that with subsidies they also offer better initial cost for some buyers TODAY. If BEVs achieve unsubsidized "initial cost parity" with ICEVs in 2025, then ICEVs will offer lower TCO ONLY in rare circumstances. At that time, nearly all buyers of ICEVs will have to justify their higher costs based on something other than initial or total costs. I have no doubt that you will be a member of that group. After all, you have been here for nearly six years feigning to want to purchase a BEV or PHEV, but we are all now aware the main thing you do here is dissuade others from purchasing BEVs by constantly pointing out their negative aspects.
GRA said:
And the sooner I can put a "NOPEC" bumper sticker on my car and flip the bird to the OPEC despot of the month, the happier I'll be.
On top of that, your signature reads, in part,
GRA said:
The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.
Yet you refuse to make the move to renewable energy and/or electric propulsion.

OTOH, many here share those two sentiments of yours which I quoted above. But instead of those being empty words to most us here, we have chosen to act on our convictions and help to propel the "good enough" technologies embodied in grid-tied photovoltaics and BEVs from niche status to mainstream.

Of course all of this is completely OT, as you said, since this thread is about a completely impractical concept: H2 FCVs for consumer applications. There is virtually NO POSSIBILITY that H2 FCVs will achieve initial or total cost parity with BEVs, ever. This is true even with the massively-wasteful government subsidies for H2 refueling infrastructure that you support.

BEV: $30,000 initial investment for the vehicle, $4000 initial investment for rooftop photovoltaics for lifetime refueling source and $1000 initial investment for refueling equipment (all unsubsidized numbers).
H2 FCV: $130,000 initial investment for the vehicle, $12,000 initial investment for photovoltaics for lifetime refueling source and $250,000 initial investment for refueling equipment (all unsubsidized numbers).

Unsubsidized, an H2 FCV costs 11X what a BEV costs for home-based refueling. While I realize that you have chosen to live where all these options are impractical (not impossible), many people can afford to purchase a BEV and provide the fuel for it at home TODAY. Many of us already do that today. This will quickly become a popular option for more and more Americans as the technology improves. Not so for H2 FCVs.
 
GRA said:
OT, but since there's been so much discussion here's the latest Morgan Stanley estimate of BEV-ICE initial cost parity, via IEVS:
Morgan Stanley Says EVs Will Reach Price Parity With ICE By 2025
http://insideevs.com/morgan-stanley-evs-price-parity-ice-2025/

The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc. A consumer can generally calculate
a simple cost-benefit analysis of buying a HICEV or another ICEV without having to consider those other factors
in the purchasing decision, e.g. most consumers rarely do a TCO when purchasing a vehicle. The extent of their
analysis basically ends at the vehicle's initial cost and its MPG. Therefore, trying to 'guess' at a AFV's significant
transition/acceptance point is naive without integrating the intangible factors related to the consumer's
purchase decision process.
 
lorenfb said:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer.

A BEV as a second commuting car or other short range trips is better than 'transparent'. You drive to work, you drive home and plug in. No more visits to the gas station.
 
lorenfb said:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....

That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.
 
Zythryn said:
lorenfb said:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....

That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.

Right, the examples you mention provide significant benefits without requiring lifestyle changes or re-orientations,
i.e. benefits to a change far outweigh the negatives. That's presently not the case for an EV versus an ICEV.
The present marginal EV growth rate results from the fact the majority of consumers don't perceive significant
benefits to offset the EV negatives. In my situation, I'm willing to accept all the negatives associated with owning
an EV, presently most to whom I speak with and ask questions are not. To consider an EV as a "disruptive technology"
as was the cell phone is naive. Besides, there're no significant break-thru technologies in a basic EV. Automotive OEMs
will slowly transition to changing the 'mix' between ICEVs and AFVs as the consumer's perceived values change.
 
lorenfb said:
Zythryn said:
lorenfb said:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....

That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.

Right, the examples you mention provide significant benefits without requiring lifestyle changes or re-orientations,
i.e. benefits to a change far outweigh the negatives. That's presently not the case for an EV versus an ICEV.
The present marginal EV growth rate results from the fact the majority of consumers don't perceive significant
benefits to offset the EV negatives. In my situation, I'm willing to accept all the negatives associated with owning
an EV, presently most to whom I speak with and ask questions are not. To consider an EV as a "disruptive technology"
as was the cell phone is naive. Besides, there're no significant break-thru technologies in a basic EV. Automotive OEMs
will slowly transition to changing the 'mix' between ICEVs and AFVs as the consumer's perceived values change.


Well I wouldn't necessarily say that the mainstream population likes going to the gas station to pump gas every week. I'm sure a lot of people would find plugging in at home a lot more convenient. The problem is as of today BEVs haven't reached parity with ICEVs yet, but they eventually will. Once you can buy a BEV crossover/SUV with 450 miles of range for the same price or even less then the ICEV version things will start to change. Obviously by that time charging will be faster and charging stations will be more numerous. You can't go by the BEVs of today when predicting the future outcome because for the most part they still suck (except for Tesla) compared to ICEVs to the average consumer. Most are ugly, low range and over priced, not exactly a recipe for converting ICEV drivers over!

If you could walk into a Toyota dealer and buy a RAV4 EV with 450 miles of range for $24k you'd see a lot more mainstream people converting over. If the salesman would educate the consumer on the many benefits of an EV it would help tremendously! Talk about how you never have to buy gas for it, never need to take it in for oil changes and how little maintenance it will need. Once they test drive it and see how silky smooth it drives and how quiet it is the vehicle will pretty much sell itself to the average consumer!
 
lorenfb said:
Zythryn said:
lorenfb said:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....

That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.

Right, the examples you mention provide significant benefits without requiring lifestyle changes or re-orientations,
i.e. benefits to a change far outweigh the negatives. That's presently not the case for an EV versus an ICEV.
The present marginal EV growth rate results from the fact the majority of consumers don't perceive significant
benefits to offset the EV negatives. In my situation, I'm willing to accept all the negatives associated with owning
an EV, presently most to whom I speak with and ask questions are not. To consider an EV as a "disruptive technology"
as was the cell phone is naive. Besides, there're no significant break-thru technologies in a basic EV. Automotive OEMs
will slowly transition to changing the 'mix' between ICEVs and AFVs as the consumer's perceived values change.

The change from a horse drawn carriage to an auto was a HUGE change.
The changes to cell phones much less so.
For some people, the changes required going from gas to EVs has been nothing but positive.
For others, not so much. The only question is, how many people find it advantageous to make the switch?
 
smkettner said:
Trouble with Mirai... it adds nothing except higher cost.
With the sole major benefit compared to an ICE being zero tailpipe emissions, and as has been shown with BEVs that's not enough to get mainstream buyers to switch, given the disadvantages FCEVs (and BEVs) currently labor under. The Model 3 and maybe the LEAF 2 may get closer to mainstream acceptance, the Model 3 because it's compelling and the LEAF 2 because it's cheaper and longer-ranged than the previous generation, a better value proposition. OTOH, as the latter isn't a compelling car, it would undoubtedly be a lot more convincing to the mainstream for local utilitarian driving if it sold for $15-$20k MSRP instead of $30k. Once the subsides expire, the MSRP will certainly need to drop.
 
GRA said:
With the sole major benefit compared to an ICE being zero tailpipe emissions,...
The Toyota Mirai does NOT have zero tailpipe emissions. It has a tailpipe because it does emit something. Mostly, it emits liquid water and water vapor, but it also emits trace amounts of platinum and likely other things, as well. Non-essential heavy metals like platinum can damage the cells in the body even in trace quantities. Unfortunately, the Toyota Mirai contains over 10X as much platinum as a similar-sized ICE passenger vehicle.

But the real issue with the Mirai and all H2 FCVs is the massive environmental damage which is done in building them and the refueling infrastructure which supports them. Like diamonds, a lot of the world's platinum comes from open mines in South Africa in which workers are subjected to "inhumane conditions" to extract the precious metals. But the platinum is just the beginning of the damage. Any vehicle which costs $130,000 to manufacture necessarily causes much more harm to the environment than one which costs an order of magnitude less to make. This almost certainly includes LOTS OF TAILPIPES involved with the manufacture and support of the Mirai emitting a massive amount even before the car ever hits the roads. In other words, fielding the Toyota Mirai ACCELERATES tailpipe emissions. It does NOT eliminate them.

I have no idea why anyone would want to pollute our planet even more than we already do by introducing ever-more-damaging vehicles onto the roads. We need to boycott such immensely bad ideas that are being done in the name of saving the planet.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
With the sole major benefit compared to an ICE being zero tailpipe emissions,...
The Toyota Mirai does NOT have zero tailpipe emissions. It has a tailpipe because it does emit something. Mostly, it emits liquid water and water vapor, but it also emits trace amounts of platinum and likely other things, as well. Non-essential heavy metals like platinum can damage the cells in the body even in trace quantities. Unfortunately, the Toyota Mirai contains over 10X as much platinum as a similar-sized ICE passenger vehicle. <snip rest>
Reg, can you link to your source which says that the Mirai emits platinum? Every generation of fuel cell has reduced the platinum loading (e.g. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&start=3880#p505210 ), with non-platinum fuel cells now under test and dem/val. As for ZEV, CARB defines ZEV very specifically, and both BEVs and FCEVs qualify. If you disagree with their definition, you should contact them and present your reasons as to why they should change it.
 
TonyWilliams said:
Before you get too “preachy” about CARB,s definition, just be cognizant to the fact that a gasoline burning BMW i3 hybrid also gets Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credit.
Sure does, as has been discussed at length (by me among others) in another topic. While we're at it, since Reg is worried about worker's health and safety while working in African mines under inhumane conditions, I'd think he should also be concerned about African miners involved in the extraction of Cobalt, used in most of the higher energy-density Li-ion chemistries such as NMC and NCA. From the wiki:
. . . Today, some cobalt is produced specifically from various metallic-lustered ores, for example cobaltite (CoAsS), but the main source of the element is as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. The copper belt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Zambia yields most of the cobalt mined worldwide.
Given the nature of those countries' governments, I wouldn't expect that miner's working conditions in the DRC, CAR or Zambia are likely to be any better than they are in South Africa. A quick Google for "democratic republic of congo miner's working conditions" brings up this as the very first response:
Child labor still rife in Democratic Republic of Congo
http://www.dw.com/en/child-labor-still-rife-in-democratic-republic-of-congo/a-39194724

. . . According to the UN children's agency, UNICEF, about 40,000 children work in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. ... "The working conditions in the Congolese mines are miserable," Faustin Adeye, who works with the Catholic charity Misereor told DW. "Many children are often physically ruined as a result. There are whole excavations which they dig up with their bare hands using machetes spades."

Adeye said the conditions in some of the cobalt mines located in the southern Democratic Republic of Congo were so bad that at times the children are buried alive when the mines cave in.

Some of the children are as young as 7 years old and many work without any protective clothing, according to the human rights organization Amnesty International.
Here's a Washington Post article that describes the entire cobalt route from mine to consumer:
THE COBALT PIPELINE
Tracing the path from deadly hand-dug mines in Congo to consumers’ phones and laptops
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap.../congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/

The DRC may be the worst, but I imagine I could find similar examples from the other two countries just as easily, so you get the idea. I guess we should refuse to use any battery containing cobalt from Africa (or any other country with similar conditions) until conditions improve. It's not just cars, of course, but also smart phones, laptops, iPads etc.

As for hazards to the public, like many substances, naturally occurring cobalt is beneficial to life in smaller doses, but can be harmful in higher ones (this isn't counting the artificially-produced radioactive isotope Cobalt-60 used in medicine, but which can also cause cancer through prolonged exposure, or radiation sickness in high doses):
Cobalt is an essential element for life in minute amounts. The LD50 value for soluble cobalt salts has been estimated to be between 150 and 500 mg/kg.[96] In the US, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has designated a permissible exposure limit (PEL) in the workplace as a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.1 mg/m3. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has set a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 0.05 mg/m3, time-weighted average. The IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and health) value is 20 mg/m3.[97]

However, chronic cobalt ingestion has caused serious health problems at doses far less than the lethal dose. In 1966, the addition of cobalt compounds to stabilize beer foam in Canada led to a peculiar form of toxin-induced cardiomyopathy, which came to be known as beer drinker's cardiomyopathy.[98][99]

After nickel and chromium, cobalt is a major cause of contact dermatitis.[100]

Cobalt can be effectively absorbed by charred pigs' bones; however, this process is inhibited by copper and zinc, which have greater affinities to bone char.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Biological_role

My personal conclusion after many years of warnings about this or that substance, not to mention the ubiquitous Prop. 65 warnings that most people ignore, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...bels-based-on-californias-proposition-65.html, is that pretty much any chemical will either cause cancer or be toxic in some other way if someone's exposed to a large enough dose for a long enough time. For example, as a diver I learned that oxygen is toxic at high partial pressures, what the symptoms are, and how to avoid them. While most of the symptoms are relatively mild and none are fatal in themselves, one in particular can indirectly cause death (uncontrollable convulsions due to OxTox can make it impossible to hold a mouthpiece in your mouth, so you drown). Perhaps we should re-energize the campaign to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide ;) :
Dihydrogen Monoxide - The Truth

The Truth about DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is perhaps the single most prevalent of all chemicals that can be dangerous to human life. Despite this truth, most people are not unduly concerned about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Governments, civic leaders, corporations, military organizations, and citizens in every walk of life seem to either be ignorant of or shrug off the truth about Dihydrogen Monoxide as not being applicable to them. This concerns us. . . .

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year.

What are the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen Monoxide Facts

Dihydrogen monoxide:

  • is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
    contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.
    may cause severe burns.
    contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
    accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
    may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients
.
Dihydrogen Monoxide Alerts

Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In the midwest alone DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage.

Dihydrogen Monoxide Uses

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

  • as an industrial solvent and coolant.
    in nuclear power plants.
    in the production of styrofoam.
    as a fire retardant.
    in many forms of cruel animal research.
    in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
    as an additive in certain junk-foods and other food products.

Stop the horror - Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide . . . .
http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html

With the high-incidence of DHMO-caused deaths in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, banning it should clearly be a top priority. Start circulating your petitions today! And now, hopefully we can return to Mirai-specific posts.
 
GRA said:
With the high-incidence of DHMO-caused deaths in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, banning it should clearly be a top priority. Start circulating your petitions today! And now, hopefully we can return to Mirai-specific posts.

Dude! With the mirai producing such a dangerous compound as its by-product, the mirai should be recalled and scrapped immediately! Think of the children!
 
Internet "jokes" like the above tend to be circulated by people who think that our society is just too damned regulated, even as we see millions suffering from things like shoddy and corrupt zoning and building practices.
 
GRA said:
While we're at it, since Reg is worried about worker's health and safety while working in African mines under inhumane conditions, I'd think he should also be concerned about African miners involved in the extraction of Cobalt, used in most of the higher energy-density Li-ion chemistries such as NMC and NCA. From the wiki:
. . . Today, some cobalt is produced specifically from various metallic-lustered ores, for example cobaltite (CoAsS), but the main source of the element is as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. The copper belt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Zambia yields most of the cobalt mined worldwide.
Given the nature of those countries' governments, I wouldn't expect that miner's working conditions in the DRC, CAR or Zambia are likely to be any better than they are in South Africa. A quick Google for "democratic republic of congo miner's working conditions" brings up this as the very first response:
Child labor still rife in Democratic Republic of Congo
http://www.dw.com/en/child-labor-still-rife-in-democratic-republic-of-congo/a-39194724

. . . According to the UN children's agency, UNICEF, about 40,000 children work in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. ... "The working conditions in the Congolese mines are miserable," Faustin Adeye, who works with the Catholic charity Misereor told DW. "Many children are often physically ruined as a result. There are whole excavations which they dig up with their bare hands using machetes spades."

Adeye said the conditions in some of the cobalt mines located in the southern Democratic Republic of Congo were so bad that at times the children are buried alive when the mines cave in.

Some of the children are as young as 7 years old and many work without any protective clothing, according to the human rights organization Amnesty International.
Here's a Washington Post article that describes the entire cobalt route from mine to consumer:
THE COBALT PIPELINE
Tracing the path from deadly hand-dug mines in Congo to consumers’ phones and laptops
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap.../congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/

The DRC may be the worst, but I imagine I could find similar examples from the other two countries just as easily, so you get the idea. I guess we should refuse to use any battery containing cobalt from Africa (or any other country with similar conditions) until conditions improve. It's not just cars, of course, but also smart phones, laptops, iPads etc.
Thanks for posting that. I was unaware of the issues related to the sourcing of cobalt.

Tesla has stated that they will source all of their cobalt from North America, but that seems extremely unlikely if they come anywhere close to their Model 3 production goals:
TechCrunch said:
So where does that leave us with Tesla? Elon Musk ambitiously aims at producing 500,000 electric vehicles a year by 2018, and Tesla has repeatedly stated that the cobalt will be sourced exclusively in North America. Whether this is a realistic assumption is a different story.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states that cobalt production in 2015 was 124,000 metric tons. Canada and the U.S. together produce roughly 4 percent of the world’s supply, nowhere near Tesla’s needs for just one of its models. Indeed, estimations from InvestorIntel show that half a million units of Tesla’s Model 3 would be equivalent to 7,800 tons of new cobalt demand, or roughly 6 percent of the annual cobalt production worldwide. The math does not seem to add up. Tesla reportedly has difficulties securing off-take agreements from traditional cathode material suppliers and is reaching down to junior miners.

Precisely regarding the juniors’ landscape, eCobalt Solutions Inc. (formerly Formation Metals) (TSX:ECS) is a Canadian mineral exploration and mine development company primarily owning the Idaho cobalt project, a high-grade and primary cobalt deposit in the U.S.. The highly anticipated project is by far the most advanced one in the region and should go online in a year’s time. Two more years will be needed to run at full capacity. Production is estimated to reach roughly 1,500 tons annually over the course of a 12.5-year lifetime, i.e. about 1 percent of the global market. Compare this to Tesla’s needs for the Model 3 and the new supply of cobalt in North America looks muted at best.
 
RegGuheert said:
Tesla has stated that they will source all of their cobalt from North America, but that seems extremely unlikely if they come anywhere close to their Model 3 production goals:
TechCrunch said:
So where does that leave us with Tesla? Elon Musk ambitiously aims at producing 500,000 electric vehicles a year by 2018, and Tesla has repeatedly stated that the cobalt will be sourced exclusively in North America. Whether this is a realistic assumption is a different story.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states that cobalt production in 2015 was 124,000 metric tons. Canada and the U.S. together produce roughly 4 percent of the world’s supply, nowhere near Tesla’s needs for just one of its models. Indeed, estimations from InvestorIntel show that half a million units of Tesla’s Model 3 would be equivalent to 7,800 tons of new cobalt demand, or roughly 6 percent of the annual cobalt production worldwide. The math does not seem to add up. Tesla reportedly has difficulties securing off-take agreements from traditional cathode material suppliers and is reaching down to junior miners.

Precisely regarding the juniors’ landscape, eCobalt Solutions Inc. (formerly Formation Metals) (TSX:ECS) is a Canadian mineral exploration and mine development company primarily owning the Idaho cobalt project, a high-grade and primary cobalt deposit in the U.S.. The highly anticipated project is by far the most advanced one in the region and should go online in a year’s time. Two more years will be needed to run at full capacity. Production is estimated to reach roughly 1,500 tons annually over the course of a 12.5-year lifetime, i.e. about 1 percent of the global market. Compare this to Tesla’s needs for the Model 3 and the new supply of cobalt in North America looks muted at best.

Surprised the above wasn't posted here too:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20321&start=530
 
RegGuheert said:
Thanks for posting that. I was unaware of the issues related to the sourcing of cobalt.
OT. That's the problem that almost always comes up when dealing with extractive industries whose main sources are in the developing world. We'd all like to choose the 'best' option which has zero negative impact, but as with most of our elections it often comes down to a case of choosing the 'least worst' option. It's trying to figure out what that is that can be difficult. Regardless of what particular element you're talking about, if you want mass adoption of a new 'clean' tech you need to get the price down so more people can afford it, but if you care about not exploiting the people who produce the stuff you have to improve their pay and working conditions, which inevitably raises the price of the element and thus the price of the 'clean' product. You also need to make sure that the finished product is handled properly at end of life so that whatever harmful substances it contains don't escape into the environment, which also raises the price. Both of these steps may restrict the total number that can be produced (as in the link you provide below) and the number of people who can afford the tech.

I try my best to come up with the answer that provides the most positives with the least negatives, but all too often I'm working from insufficient information and/or simply lack the knowledge to choose wisely. I've been dealing with that ethical issue at least since I sold AE in the early '90s, when I knew that crystalline silicon PV modules used boron and phosphorous dopants to give them the P-N junction needed to make them function, not to mention the lead-acid and NiCd batteries we also sold to store the electricity they generated. And many of the new multi-junction cells use InGaP, InGaAs and Germanium for the different band gaps. Some thin-film modules use CdTe or CuInSe2.

PM electric motors such as Tesla has adopted for the Model 3 usually contain rare-earth minerals such as neodymium or samarium-cobalt, sourced from China. All of these present at least some health risk, with arsenic, cadmium and selenium probably at the top of the hazardous list (Google 'Kesterson' for an example of the latter). While the amounts of such toxics in an individual module may be small, when multiplied by millions or billions of PV modules you're talking about large quantities of toxics which need to be handled properly throughout their life cycle. So, should we place the stress on energy conversion efficiency, cost, working conditions/safety or potential environmental toxicity, and what percentage for each, when choosing which type of PV module to buy? Same goes for the materials in batteries, wind turbines, fuel cells etc.

RegGuheert said:
Tesla has stated that they will source all of their cobalt from North America, but that seems extremely unlikely if they come anywhere close to their Model 3 production goals:
TechCrunch said:
So where does that leave us with Tesla? Elon Musk ambitiously aims at producing 500,000 electric vehicles a year by 2018, and Tesla has repeatedly stated that the cobalt will be sourced exclusively in North America. Whether this is a realistic assumption is a different story.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) states that cobalt production in 2015 was 124,000 metric tons. Canada and the U.S. together produce roughly 4 percent of the world’s supply, nowhere near Tesla’s needs for just one of its models. Indeed, estimations from InvestorIntel show that half a million units of Tesla’s Model 3 would be equivalent to 7,800 tons of new cobalt demand, or roughly 6 percent of the annual cobalt production worldwide. The math does not seem to add up. Tesla reportedly has difficulties securing off-take agreements from traditional cathode material suppliers and is reaching down to junior miners.

Precisely regarding the juniors’ landscape, eCobalt Solutions Inc. (formerly Formation Metals) (TSX:ECS) is a Canadian mineral exploration and mine development company primarily owning the Idaho cobalt project, a high-grade and primary cobalt deposit in the U.S.. The highly anticipated project is by far the most advanced one in the region and should go online in a year’s time. Two more years will be needed to run at full capacity. Production is estimated to reach roughly 1,500 tons annually over the course of a 12.5-year lifetime, i.e. about 1 percent of the global market. Compare this to Tesla’s needs for the Model 3 and the new supply of cobalt in North America looks muted at best.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Internet "jokes" like the above tend to be circulated by people who think that our society is just too damned regulated, even as we see millions suffering from things like shoddy and corrupt zoning and building practices.
OT. Actually, they tend to be circulated by people who are appalled at the level of scientific illiteracy of the American population. DHMO warnings have been around since before the internet became ubiquitous, although it certainly hastened their spread. I can remember putting up a petition on the bulletin board at a backcountry ski hut to see how many people I could get to sign it in the early '90s. While most of the people who did indicated by their ironic comments that they were well aware of what it was, this was a college-educated group with a high proportion of them having degrees in the natural or physical sciences, medicine etc. Liberal Arts majors, OTOH. . . .

For the results of a 1997 poll of fifty ninth-graders conducted by a 14 year-old student named Eric Zohner as his science fair project (he won), see http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

I was unaware that his efforts led to the following, which illustrates what I referred to above. Per the wiki,
In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion".
Note that while Glassman's original article appeared in the Washington Post he was a member of the American Enterprise Institute, so at least in his case you may be correct as to his reasons. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us who circulate such 'jokes' are motivated solely or primarily by fears of over-regulation. Seeing as how we're on the subject, though, a county council in the Bay Area just passed a resolution asking the state legislature to ban using cellphones in crosswalks: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/...ial-seeks-to-ban-cellphone-use-in-crosswalks/

My personal feeling is that since pedestrian-pedestrian collisions are extremely unlikely to result in serious injuries or fatalities, bike-pedestrian risk is somewhat higher, but only car-pedestrian risk is almost certain to be serious, we should continue to let people who care so little about their personal safety that they are willing to risk being hit by a bike or car while in a crosswalk because they aren't paying attention to their surroundings, take that risk - they're the ones who will suffer the consequences. Or are we also to ban reading a book while in a crosswalk, or eating a dripping Ice cream cone, or any of the myriad other ways that people have of not paying attention while walking? Do we really need or want to burden the police with protecting adults from the consequences of their own poor judgement, even more than we already do, or are we trying to do this just as a way to raise additional revenue?

I also happen to feel that Jaywalking when safe to do so is an entirely logical activity, as the reason for laws against it was to prevent pedestrians from impeding car traffic - pedestrian safety was added later as a justification. I'm not going to wait for a signal to change if I'm out walking and the nearest oncoming car is too far away to pose any threat. It appears that California is hopefully revising the ridiculous law that currently makes it illegal to enter a crosswalk when the countdown timer is on, even if you have more than enough time to cross the street before the light changes: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/14/16308342/crosswalk-jaywalk-tickets-countdown-california It's on the governor's desk, but he hasn't signed it yet.
 
Back
Top