The comparable here is oil extraction. I have never seen any evidence that oil extraction is better for the environment than lithium mining.

The grid will require significant investment no matter what at this point. Many parts are nearing the end of their useful lifespan, being built more than 50 years ago. Renewables and electrified transport definitely add to it, but people are trying to pin the entire cost on those things which is just wrong.

> The comparable here is oil extraction.

Not really. Batteries are energy storage, oil is energy production. Most of the energy used to charge batteries comes from burning fossil fuels.

Even if we convert the grid to 100% renewables and get rid of fossil fuels, we will still need to mine for battery materials.

It is very comparable in the realm of automobiles. A tank full of gas and a battery full of electrons provide the energy it takes move your car. Oil must be extracted, refined into gas, transported to a local station, and then stored in your gas tank. Even with no renewables on the grid, converting fossil fuels to electricity is more efficient than gas. Except that every year the grid shifts to more renewables.

Bottom line batteries/electricity generation do less ecological damage today than gas/gas tanks, and every year the gap will increase.

> Even if we convert the grid to 100% renewables and get rid of fossil fuels, we will still need to mine for battery materials.

But we'll no longer need to extract and burn fossil fuels, which is where the vast majority of the environmental benefit comes from. You can't say "Aside from the main overwhelming benefit, it doesn't look so good"!

> But we'll no longer need to extract and burn fossil fuels, which is where the vast majority of the environmental benefit comes from.

You're conflating different things. Battery production does not mean we will automatically get 100% clean energy. Gasoline in cars accounts for like 15% of the US's fossil fuel usage.

Again, batteries are energy storage. Not energy production.

This idea that batteries --> clean energy --> All negatives of batteries must be ignored is disingenuous and wrong.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, but people advocating for the use of EVs to solve emissions problems are almost universally also arguing for lower emission sources of grid power, like solar/wind. The two go together like ducks and water.

Yeah, and they adopt batteries with all the same emotional attachment and they have for green energy. They consider a discussion of the problems with current battery tech as an attack on green energy itself.

It's not productive.

Hydrogen is the same. Green hydrogen -> hydrogen vehicles. Just without the huge resource needs of battery manufacturing.

The nice thing about battery EVs is that 95% of what's there is completely indifferent to the kind of battery used. The charging infrastructure can remain exactly the same. Even the battery management system can be tweaked to handle the charge rates and thermal characteristics of almost any chemistry. Lithium isn't the only option. Anything that gets us away from combustion-based/pumped-fuel designs, which lack this flexibility, is a good thing.