Not Enough Copper to Meet Demand for EV Revolution

Are EVs Better?

The Electric Vehicle (EV) craze has many wondering if these machines are actually better for the environment than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. The point of contention seems to hinge on the behind-the-scenes work that goes into producing an EV—i.e., the mining of metals, the carbon footprint produced in bringing the EV to market and keeping it charged, and the environmental impact of all the batteries that could be piled up with nowhere to go once the EV is taken out of circulation (Common & English, 2019; Ellsmoor, 2022; Terzon, 2023). Researcher like Ellsmoor (2022) believe that the pros outweigh the cons and that EVs represent less threat to the environment than ICE vehicles. However, Ellsmoor’s (2022) data appears to be somewhat cherry-picked. In reality it looks like EVs are not actually better for the environment and in fact may be worse considering all the amount of copper and other metals like lithium that will need to be mined just to further than transition from ICE to EV (White, 2024). When all is said and done, the EV actually looks like it could be leading the world to an environmental crisis of epic proportions—quite the opposite of a future of sustainability predicted by EV promoters like Elon Musk (Ochoa, 2024).

Ellsmoor (2022) makes the claim that “EVs are responsible for considerably lower emissions over their lifetime than vehicles running on fossil fuels, regardless of the source that generates the electricity.” The claim is based on analysis of how much carbon dioxide is produced in the manufacturing of batteries for EVs versus how much carbon dioxide is produced by ICE vehicles over their lifetime. The comparison is somewhat short-sighted, however, because it is only looking at battery production. It is not looking the total overhaul of infrastructure that would be needed to support EV charging for an entire nation of 300+ million people. For example, the world does not have nearly enough copper being mined at the current rate to support this gigantic transition. As White (2024) points out, “the manufacturing process of an EV uses around 132 pounds of copper, compared to 52 pounds of copper used to produce an equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle.” This disproportionate use of copper would mean that supply would have to increase at a more than one hundred percent increase than what has been mined throughout the whole of human history (White, 2024). The amount of new copper mines would have to grow by more than 50% (White, 2024). Think of all the environmental red tape that would be involved in that process alone. Ellsmoor crunches a few numbers regarding carbon dioxide emissions related to battery production. What he does not do is look at the much bigger picture of everything involved in bringing EVs to market along with charging stations—all of which require a great deal more copper than presently is mined.

Another environmental problem is what to do with all the batteries once the EV has run its course. Batteries contain toxic materials and they cannot just be left lying around or be easily recycled for that matter. Terzon (2023) cites experts who warn of “a ‘huge waste stream’ that poses a triple threat: fire risks in landfill, environmental impacts, and health hazards caused if toxic chemicals leech into land and waterways.” There are companies currently researching ways to recycle these batteries and thus reduce their harmful impact on the environment, but there is no clear indication that such a goal can be met or be proven to be profitable.

Finally, as Ochoa (2024) points out, “EVs are supercharging an impending environmental crisis” due to the demands they are placing on metals supplies. All those metals need to be mined and mining is already heavily frowned upon by those seeking a sustainable future. The idealistic dream of clean energy seems to have forgotten to take into consideration all the work that must go in behind the scenes in order for that dream to be made into a reality.

The counter-argument is that EV adoption represents a future of renewable energy and that there cannot be an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The problem is that the path to renewable energy might not be sustainable. Making the desired omelet might require more than the breaking of a few eggs. It might end up requiring the total eradication of the entire egg stock—and even then it is not clear whether there will really be sustainable omelet production by the end of it, to extend the metaphor. Bureaucrats and business tycoons like Musk are propping up an idea of sustainability and are getting rich off it (Musk has become one of the world’s richest men and Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress have increased their own fortunes throughout the era of EV-hype, largely accelerated thanks to federal largesse and various subsidies). The actual future of the world does not at all clearly indicate that EVs are ultimately better for the environment, in spite of all the hyperbole and cherry-picked data and rose-colored pictures.