Replacing Oil Wells With Strip Mines: Mineral Shortages Already Taking A Toll On EV Car Costs

Shocked. (sarc)

It really blows my mind how anti-progress people on this site are:

- Diesel? "Old, polluting, doesn't really benefit!"
- Electric? "Never going to work. Too expensive!"
- Flappy paddle gear boxes? "Stupid! Who wants them?"
- Self driving? "They're going to kill you and everyone else on the road!"

For every single one of these, people always think it'll never work and unless it's a manual transmission, gasoline based car it sucks. The world will end up leaving you behind. For those that are still actually reading, and haven't downvoted. How about this:

- Alternative engines: "Sweet, they'll eventually deliver more power and performance in ways ICE couldn't"
- Transmissions: "Computers can already shift faster, let's work on making them better work with the driver to make them even better"
- Self Driving: "Start with long distance highways, and dedicated lanes and get all the people who don't want to drive out of my way so I can enjoy the roads"

It's going to happen, people should learn to embrace and shape it rather than the "pry it out of my old, dead hands" approach.

Progress must always be measured by cold facts rather then hype and hyperbole. When progress can demonstrate data without excuses, then it is progress. If progress is hype like "FCVs will make us all live in a utopia" then it isn't progress, but wishful thinking.

Pragmatists aren't against progress, but progress (hype and BS) junkies don't like truth, fact, and logic.

The article says nothing about the negative stigma attached to the progress of electrification from large oil and existing petroleum transport based companies. It went mildly into the shortages of cobalt which is an essential mineral in the production of battery technology. Instead of just jumping on the ban wagon of "electrification is the saviour of the human race and the only way forward", lets look at the interests behind this push. The green religion preached for years that the oil reserves around the world are only of a finite amount and the more we use the quicker we deplete our supply. Well now it seems the green religion, one that has very heavily backed this movement, is steering another industry reliant on finite amounts of trace elements which will again create a monopolistic cartel to control costs associated with this realm of transportation. The other really horrible side of this push is the acceptance of inhumane treatment of human life in the pursuit of 60% of worlds global production of this precious mineral extraction. The green religion will talk of the atrocities of polluted air and what it is doing to our global populations yet they will blindfold themselves to the atrocities being committed for the advancement of their interpretation of which direction global transportation needs to go. Then I ask how much of the land of the world are we going to accept to be strip mined to support this interpretation for future transport. How much pollution will we accept in the toxic chemical leaching processes involved in purifying these minerals that they can be used for battery production. Will we sit idly aside and watch while our beautiful landscapes around the world are destroyed to save humans from air pollution? This to me seems very much like trading one big cartel for another and it still appears like a Lose-Lose scenario!!!

I am not so sure that the people in this group are anti-progress - however after decades of predictions of impending doom - people have learned to accept more of what they see - that what they do not see yet.

The problem is =- the "timelines" of predictions tend to be overtly optimistic - and they also tend to ignore a basic thing - that
Their" solution will not be the only possibility - as well as ignoring advancements in current technology that extends its life. For example - the predictions that by 2040 - no ICE engines will be in the road is NONSENSE. Look around - there are TOO many cars approaching 20 years old still on the road today. THe idea that a replacement will come and simply wipe out all of the existing technology in a small amount of time simply cannot be supported - remembering that the new technology brings costs that many people of the word cannot afford. IN addition - as the Catalytic converted showed - and the Opposed cylinder engine portends - the current technology CAN be improved for longer life.

THe biggest problem in new technology is not ITS production =- it is the support needed for it (Like LOTS of new electric generation plants whose PLANNING would need to be TODAY to be available in 15-20 years) - but it also ignores the effect that it would have on the economy as well. THe carbon based energy industry created jobs for millions of people - and there would need to be a gradual move from one to another for the economies to survive. Otherwise - like that in photography - you end up with a lot of support people without jobs and essentially a fast dying technology.

Things do not happen on the earth over short periods of time - they often happen in hardly noticed steps over a period of Millions of years. It is wrong to assume we are against change - or as you say - progress. Progress will happen - but it the person who says it will only happen in ONE way that is wrong.

Mineral shortages? N.Korea has trillions in rare earth minerals. And you thought it was about nukes. LOL!!!