Down the Mine Shaft

The Dirty Secret Behind EVs

Jadar lithium-borates project, Serbia (Image via Mining Technology/I Made Pasek)

“There’s gold in them thar hills” — apocryphal

All Roads Lead to Rome

The story of mining is the story of civilization itself. Bronze Age (3300-1200 B.C.) metalworkers alloyed copper with tin to forge swords, armor and tools, giving rise to the great empires of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The subsequent Iron Age (1200-500 B.C.) saw the smelting of iron with added carbon to produce early versions of steel. Boasting superior tensile strength over bronze weapons, Iron Age spears and swords ushered in the civilizations of classical antiquity; namely Greece and Rome.

Throughout recorded history, mining has continued to be key to a flourishing society. From the gold trade of medieval Florence to Spain’s Golden Age backed by New World silver, precious metal mining has always been intertwined with the desire to conquer new territory and flaunt extravagant wealth. The advent of modern steel production methods in 18th century Britain brought about a completely new economic paradigm altogether: industrial capitalism. Now, almost three centuries later, mining still supplies the lifeblood for advanced technologies. Only, that’s not what the likes of the “energy transition” brokers would have one believe.

A Clash of Civilizations

Enter Elon Musk, perhaps the most famous showman of the EV industry. The Tesla magnate has a long record of equating the production and usage of EVs with a vision of a green, emissions-free environment. In support of his mission to drive all-electric car policies, Musk is previously quoted as saying:

By definition we must move towards renewable energy. How can people argue against that? To argue that is to say that eventually we will run out of energy and die or civilization will collapse.

But, dig a little deeper, and one discovers that EVs have a dirty little secret: their batteries depend on enormous quantities of mined lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper and rare earth metals. An average EV battery weighs 1,000 pounds, in lieu of the fuel tank holding about 80 pounds of gasoline in a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. While ICE cars emit carbon primarily through the combustion of gasoline during regular use, EV-associated carbon emissions occur mainly at the upstream manufacturing stage, during the excavation, processing and assemblage of minerals into massive Li-ion batteries.

Given what we know about mining (an often dirty, exploitative, and extractive industry), Musk’s words touting a simplistic view of EVs as virtually carbon-free ring hollow, smacking of greenwashing. So what’s the truth? Where do EVs really stack up against conventional vehicles in their lifecycle carbon emissions?

The Devil in The Details

The answer is about as murky as you’d expect. It is not in dispute that EVs are more carbon intensive during the manufacturing phase than their ICE cousins. Indeed, studies have shown EVs produce about 60-70% more initial greenhouse gas emissions, giving them a distinct disadvantage over conventional cars during the first years of use. A study conducted by Volvo on its own fleet demonstrated a 70% emissions surcharge on the manufacturing of its C40 Recharge EV over its XC40 ICE model. Moreover, the study found that, under the normal EU electricity mix (still relatively clean compared to the rest of the world), it would take about 77,000 km (~48,000 miles) of driving before the EV would pay off its carbon debt relative to the ICE model.

Source: Volvo

Often stressed by EV manufacturers are guarantees that the consumer never sees the effects of the upstream emissions, and that the overall lifetime benefits of EVs ultimately outweigh the ICE alternative. A study published in BloombergNEF recently made the social media rounds showing EV lifecycle emissions over 70% lower than gas and diesel vehicles:

The report claims that the breakeven point for EVs to meet par emissions with ICE vehicles in the U.S. and Europe is now less than 5 years. EV emissions then fall precipitously in comparison, as the only emissions produced are through the consumption of fossil fuels in the electric grid mix during charging. The end result, given estimated useful lifetimes (10+ years), shows a range of 25-70% overall reduction of lifecycle emissions for EVs over ICE cars, depending on country of origin and use. While an impressive analysis (big if true!), such forecasts are ultimately based on modeled assumptions, which may or may not bear out in reality. For example, in another part of the report, the authors state that the gap between ICE and EV emissions will continue to widen in favor of EVs, based on current trajectories and future policy goals for using solar, wind, and other renewable resources as the main power supply for EV fueling. However, as a bombshell study by Bain & Co. recently found, California is currently significantly off-target in meeting its net-zero by 2045 goals, estimating instead a destination date of 2060 or beyond. As California goes, so goes the nation.

Moreover, estimation of the embodied carbon (emissions produced during manufacturing) for EVs is devilishly difficult, and likely more volatile than the Bloomberg study cares to admit. In a 2023 report for The Manhattan Institute, veteran energy analyst Mark Mills assessed the research landscape for EV carbon emissions. Mills found that many of the prominent studies in the field, such as those from Argonne National Labs, and the International Energy Agency, rely on “engineering calculations and approximations” and admit that embodied carbon for EVs “vary considerably across companies and regions.” The reason? we simply don’t have adequately detailed data calculating the mining emissions for the minerals that go into EV batteries. Mills further points to other dark horse variables that can drastically influence EV embodied carbon, such as battery chemistry, environmental protection laws in the country of vehicle origin, and emissions from onboard power electronics (sensors and controls for internet-assisted guidance).

Assuming car and battery useful lifetimes can also be a risky business. Due to high costs, accidents involving the destruction of an EV battery are often written off as a total loss, even when the integrity of the rest of the vehicle remains intact. And, when batteries can be replaced, not only are they exorbitantly expensive, but the added embodied carbon can easily dwarf avoided lifetime emissions for the vehicle as a whole.

While any assumptions about lifetime emissions of EVs must be tempered with (an entire mountain) of (Li+) salt, the sheer amount of total minerals and surrounding materials that must be extracted and processed to make a single Li-ion car battery puts the scale of the problem into perspective. This passage from the Mills study is quite illuminating:

The ore grades for each mineral dictate the quantities of rock that must be dug up and processed to produce minerals needed to fabricate one battery; thus:

Lithium brines contain ~0.14% lithium, so that entails ~20,000 pounds of brines to yield 30 pounds of pure lithium

Cobalt ~0.1% ore grades means ~60,000 pounds of ore dug up per battery

Nickel ~1.3% grade, means ~10,000 pounds of ore

Graphite ~10% leads to 2,000 pounds of ore

Copper ~0.6% yields about 12,000 pounds of ore

These five elements total ~100,000 pounds of ore to fabricate one EV battery. To properly account for all the earth moved, there’s also the overburden, the materials first dug up to get to the ore; depending on ore type and location, it averages three to seven tons of overburden removed to access each ton of ore, thus ~500,000 pounds total. The exact number varies for different batteries and mines. Note that this doesn’t include large quantities of chemicals to process and refine the ores, or the mining/refining for the other 400 pounds of battery minerals used (e.g., steel, aluminum)

By any standard, that’s A LOT of minerals! And, as reported in a tour-de-force expose by mining engineer Simon Michaux for the Geological Survey of Finland, the world simply does not have enough currently available mineral reserves to enable the shift to 100% EVs. Barring significant future deposit discoveries, expedited mining permits, or a major breakthrough in elemental recycling technologies, Michaux paints an ugly picture for the future of EVs, and the energy transition at large. As reserves continue to diminish, prices for EVs will inevitably rise, as they are pegged to the underlying volatility in the commodities market for component minerals. Simultaneously, diminishing supply inevitably leads to lower quality ore grades, meaning the amount of rock needed to produce the same battery as today will require more in coming years, and with it, all the attendant chemical pollution and carbon emissions.

Digging for Gold

Considering the greatly exaggerated green laurels resting on the head of the EV industry, it may be prudent to suggest a slice of humble pie. At least as much devil’s horns as angel’s halo, the industry clearly has a lot to answer for (and that’s before atoning for the sins of horrific human rights abuses occurring in mines all over the world — another topic for another time).

As far as policy goes, a little honesty might be in order. But honesty in energy policy is not the order of the day. An unfolding scandal in EV emissions compliance regulations has rocked the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in recent months. While the Department of Transportation requires gas-powered cars to report real values for measured fuel efficiency, the DOE until now has permitted EV manufacturers to simply multiply their efficiency by 6.67 to calculate the equivalent miles-per-gallon (MPG), an estimate that tends to produce absurdly high MPG figures. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal critiqued the lack of scientific evidence for this regulation by approximation, saying “that number has no basis in reality.”

Aside from aiding and abetting EV makers in cheating on reported data, the Administration is weighing its thumb heavily on the scale of industrial incentives. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) subsidizes U.S. carmakers to manufacture EVs at the expense of support for conventional gas-powered vehicles and some hybrid models, regardless of consumer demand. The EPA is similarly expected to clamp down on tailpipe emissions, with the apparent goal of crowding some ICE vehicles out of the market.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the rush to shower EVs with praise is its very deceitfulness. Through its image in popular culture in films such as “There Will Be Blood,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the oil industry has never pretended to be anything other than it is: filthy, greedy, vicious, conniving; but also transformative for modern life. The doyennes of the “energy transition” (EVs, solar and wind generation, etc.) on the other hand, are portrayed as white-gloved debutantes pure as the driven snow. Fairy tales can’t have their princesses without their witches and ogres.

What is certain is that where there is money to be made, someone will cash in. If oil was the Black Gold of the 20th Century, lithium is surely the Green Gold of the 21st. As the Golden Rule of Mining states, “to the victors, the spoils.”

Electrically yours,

K.T.