Peter wrote:
go towards carbon neutral
This is for the climate change thread but surely there is no such thing – all the time you are burning hydrocarbon fuel somewhere
One doesn’t go carbon neutral, one ‘goes towards it’ or ‘confronts the issue’ 
Discussion of the effectiveness with which that is done is thereby avoided.
I wonder whether anyone here believes China is pushing EVs as a way to reduce its use of fossil fuels? I think they are doing it to transition from limited oil supplies (they have some oil but not a lot in relation to predicted demand) towards domestically mined coal for transportation energy. That coal as I mentioned provides most of their electric grid power (63%) now, and will continue to do so. The NPR link is for you, aart.
Given that China also controls much of the EV battery material supply and provides almost all the rare earths for PM motors, when used, if they can get the world going in the same direction with EVs and sell solar panels as well, that’s also in their interest. Likewise the Washington Post link. It’s obviously useful to the Chinese that politicians in their export markets are making some of their competition illegal, the kind of approach with which I’d imagine the Chinese government/industry really resonates.
One of the initiatives in the US defense world is BTW to create an environmentally acceptable US-domestic source for rare earth PM magnet materials, at any cost per kg given that it is a strategic requirement.
“Reducing the world population by 50% over 100 years would be a whole lot easier than—-”
The technology to do this in a few days has existed for over 70 years. It would also reduce population growth for hundreds of years.
There might soon be the motivation to use it, I fear.
Reducing the world population is no problem, just keep the political leaders we have now in situ.
Silvaire is right about China except his opinion on coal fuelled electricity generation remaining above 60% well into the future. IMO this will come down quite a lot in the next 5 years but that is just my opinion. Their continued economic growth has given this huge population the money to give up their bicycles and buy cars. Their major cities were already polluted and the sudden influx of ICEs doubles down on that.
Some cities were becoming no go areas because of the air quality. Not good for business.
As most cars were being bought by people in the suburbs of the larger cities and being driven in those cities on short journeys EVs have become the ideal solution.
Whether there is or is not a big uptake in EVs in other countries will depend on many factors. One of the major factors is and will be energy security.
China is an importer of oil.
To a lesser extent India will be the same.
France has the same problem (as do many other countries in Europe.) We need a replacement for oil and gas. This has become more urgent because we have been bitten again. This is not our first oil crisis in the last 50years.
Norway and the UK are outliers here. Both have oil and gas but UK still needs to import whereas Norway exports most of theirs.
But then Norway is self sufficient in electricity generation without the oil and gas. It probably has too much and they can’t sell all of it but EVs are in fact for them a good electricity storage system. And by replacing ICEs with EVs they can sell more oil to the rest of Europe. Even if we ignore the environmental case for EVs there is in many countries a major political and economic case in terms of energy security and who sets the price.
The UKs oil is mainly exported but then they import oil from elsewhere. But regarding EVs they seem to have a problem. It seems that at one time the general population were gung ho for EVs now with the threat of a ban on the manufacture of ICE vehicles getting closer they appear to be less enthusiastic. It is not helpful that the political will has not been there to make the investment in charging posts a viable proposition without charging high prices per Kwh.
The USA has its own oil and gas, thankyou very much and don’t have to concern thelselves with the worldwide price of oil or OPEC or so the population has been led to believe. Whether its gas guzzling cars or guns its their right to drive or carry them. Who can argue with the fact that gasoline is cheaper by far than electricity. So why have EVs? One reason and one reason alone and that’s to support Tesla. After all like Apple and Microsoft, Google and Exxon, they are great US companies.
The USA has its own oil and gas
It is actually North America including Canada and Mexico which is relevant in relation to western hemisphere O & G reserves and US energy security. Also, known and secure South American reserves are expanding. Development of better technology to get more natural gas to Europe would be a very good thing, even if it would drive up the US natural gas price, given that Europe has expanded its population to a level vastly higher than its natural resources can support and it has minimal energy security.
Norway using hydro power for transportation is also a good thing, and its oil exports, but it’s obviously not a useful model for the world as a whole, or most parts of the world individually. France has a better idea with nuclear while Germany is clueless.
China is building more many more coal plants, as per the link I provided, not less, and will use them to power more EVs. They don’t want to be reliant on Russia either and limited range is no problem whatsoever for their central planners. Selling low cost cars in Europe where low cost competition to EVs is being outlawed is just a side benefit.
AIUI in France the population is in descent as it is in many other countries in what is considered to be the developed world. It is why there is concern that there will be no one to pay for pensions.🙂
You think oil production in South America is secure. Politically I would say that to rely on that region would be in some ways like getting into bed with Russia. Think Venezuela znd Panama.
And.I can’t see the UK getting closer to Argentina with long term contracts for oil and gas. Eutope might get closer but even the EU are aware that the use of Los Malvinos rather than the Falklands causes upset to a large trading partner, even after Brexit.
Where is your.source for China increasing its coal generated electricity? But as I mentioned I deliberately left out the enviromental concerns other than inner city pollution for not using petrol. Geopolitics and the economics that goes with it are far more important to governments but environmental concerns is easier to sell to the public along with building a public xenophobia.
I wrote that secure oil reserves in South America are expanding, e.g. in Guyana, not that they are all secure. Also as written, it is North America that is relevant in relation to US energy security.
The source for the data on Chinese coal power plant production is linked in my post 320 above. They are permitting about 2 new plants per week, per the article.
I think it’s clear that climate change ‘crisis’ drama is being used to coerce public behavior in response to the energy security issue. I don’t personally think that tactic is justified, putting it politely, but I’m waiting regardless for the command to build an ark. 
Ok, so how does China increasing coal fuel for electricity generation affect the use of oil and gas for energy security in Europe and or electric vehicles?
As I wrote I have steered away from enviromental matters due to disagreement, on here, as to whether the use of oil and gas and the CO2 and other by products is causing a climate crisis.
Political, corporation, and religious leaders will use any argument to steer public opinion and the environmental argument suits many of their needs. The USA under Donald Trump decided to go against this direction of travel and favour employment in such areas as coal and steel.
It worked for him in his target voter areas.
The red wall. Funny it meant the opposite in the UK.
gallois wrote:
Ok, so how does China increasing coal fuel for electricity generation affect the use of oil and gas for energy security in Europe and or electric vehicles?
Because most of the battery source material (and probably batteries themselves) are going to come from China. By outlawing the competition to EVs, we’re heading for putting ourselves into a position where something as basic as personal mobility will be dependent upon China. Can no-one see why this is a bad idea?
Make no mistake, China is not your friend. China is a big, powerful country with an authoritarian regime and tradition. It acts aggressively on the world stage. It intends to challenge the US (which you may not like, but it is at least a democracy and a free market) as the pre-emptive global power and has the intention of wielding economic, political and maybe even military power over all of us in the long run.
Do not become dependent upon China for anything. It is an extremely bad idea.
Do not become dependent upon China for anything.
Slight problem – the world is already dependent on China for rare earths, and in particular neodymium of which there are several kilos in every EV.
The irony is that this is not at all necessary. The “rare earths” aren’t rare at all. Neodymium is more abundant than silver. There are deposits all over the place, including a very substantial one in California near Yuma, AZ. But it’s cheaper to get it from China, partly because they don’t give a whatever about the environment. The CA mine has never been a financial success, and (even more ironic) is now owned by a Chinese company.
But it would take government action of some kind to change the situation, similar to what Biden is doing for semiconductor production. And in the US government intervention is considered a Bad Thing. So it won’t happen, and the world will continue to be dependent on China for rare earths.
Incidentally neodymium isn’t actually necessary for EVs. As was discussed on this very forum a while back, permanent magnet motors are marginally more efficient than asynchronous (no magnet) ones, for cars at least. Switch to asynchronous motors and you don’t need any exotic materials at all.
@johnh, there are significant initiatives to develop a US domestic source of neodymium, dysprosium etc for defense applications, e.g. new submarines. The mine you mention is on the California/Nevada border near Las Vegas and was shut down years ago, then at some point it became Chinese owned, as you mention. IIRC that has now been resolved at some level. There are also others like in the US and some supply from e.g. Australia.
Perhaps more important than the raw material is the processing, which is currently a pretty dirty operation that as a result is almost entirely done in China. Despite that the US Government now requires that certain operations for their magnets be done in secure countries. One of the main suppliers is now a UK company, as a stop-gap measure for defense applications and development is ongoing.
The ‘on paper’ PM efficiency difference is about 98% versus 93% due to no resistive losses on the field winding, but the real number depends on the operating condition, just like aero engines.
