EVs With Lithium Batteries For Everybody?
What's been on my mind a lot in recent weeks is this notion that our automotive transportation is going to change over to a fleet of EVs with Lithium batteries. Electric vehicles to begin with are commodity-metals-intensive. They use a lot more copper cable than an ICE vehicle would, and they use things like raw earth magnets for the motors. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation tells you that if you wanted to replace very gasoline/petrol ICE vehicle with Lithium battery EVs, there wouldn't be enough of a Lithium supply to fill the need.
I hold shares in some Lithium mines in Australia so I'm biased - I think if the world decides EVs with Lithium batteries, I'll stand to make some money in the mid to long term. Yet the little environmentalist in me is a little uncomfortable with the prospect of crappy manufacturers filling the world with crappy lithium batteries in their crappy electric vehicles. It's the stuff of nightmares just as bad as global warming. Maybe the whole world should have a deep think about whether this is indeed the way we want to go in terms of vehicles. There's no point replacing one catastrophic global problem with another one.
Toyota is apparently the world leader in patents for batteries. So you would think Toyota would be leading the way with EVs but they are not. If you listen to the corporate communications coming out of Toyota, they seem to think hydrogen fuel cells are a better option than Lithium batteries. Indeed, they're pretty big on hydrogen in general. It stands to reason that if we could connect up the hydrogen economy to renewables, and ran vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells, we would be lessening the overall impact of lithium mining on the world.
Of course, Elon Musk thinks Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. He's very deeply invested in Lithium batteries. All I'm saying is, there are real arguments for not going entirely with Lithium battery EVs.
End of Globalism
There's a bit of talk lately about the end of globalisation. The salient argument being, America has been withdrawing from the world, and as it withdraws, it is leaving power vacuums on the world's high seas. The eventual picture maybe that there will be a free trade blocs built around NAFTA, EU, and CPTPP. Only liberal democracies need apply - because those blocs can and would trade with one another, but it deliberately leaves out China, Russia, Pakistan, Myanmar, the Middle East, and Eurasia, as well as Africa.
Of course, the Middle East will likely hang on as long as oil is needed, but if the world moves on to running vehicles and planes without fossil fuels, the Middle East will likely lose its purchase on the economic relations involving these blocs. It's remarkable really - especially for us Gen-Xers because our generation was the one that felt globalisation was this inexorably, irresistible economic force that would wash away tariffs and protections and lower our standard of living (instead it imported deflation from China and we ended up with ore stuff than we need for dirt cheap, but that's another story). Naomi Klein was all over this space with her books and the big protests in Seattle in the late 90s was in opposition to globalism. Now we find less than a generation later that globalism is surrendering to history, and that our world is going to move back to trading blocs of the sort that existed pre-World War II.
It's a bit sad that America's withdrawal from Afghanistan has been interpreted as America's weakness rather than loss of interest in global affairs. The invasion of Ukraine and the sabre rattling by China in the South China Seas is all a little disconcerting misreads. It's not the America is weak now; it's more that it doesn't care what the rest of the world does to beat itself up. It's still invested in the status quo, and more importantly, it will look after its allies. That said, it feels a little weird that we have to start building institutions like the Quad and AUKUS to fill in the power vacuum.
In an ideal world, Russia and China come in from the cold instead of trying to impose their will on their surrounding countries. Nobody really shares in the grand vision of a Great Russia or a Great China if it means their sovereignty gets compromised. There is some level where the onus is on Russia and China to play nice instead of play these dominance games. The long term prognosis for both those countries is not good thanks to their ageing demographics. They are going to need more friends in the future, not less. Making the whole world your enemy is not proving to be a good move by Russia. You kind hope China gets the message but alas it's run by another dictator.
If globalisation really is in retreat, you would think it would stop these countries dead in their tracks and make the reconsider their place in the world. The history where Russia had few friends or China had few friends were not good for either country.
No comments:
Post a Comment