As far as the shortage of lithium goes, see:
www.greentechmedia.com "Is there enough Lithium to maintain the growth of the Lithium Ion Battery Market?" Details the the unlikely supply system for Lithium.
Since you seem to like the technical aspects of "Climate Change", Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville has written extensively on the subject.
www.drroyspencer.com. He is the retired lead climatologist for Nasa and openly admits that most of the climate models to date are not accurate enough to be reliable. Has very many articles on his website and is interesting reading.
Dave
I took a look at the articles you provided and do not find either one of them compelling at all. In the Greentechmedia article, it concludes that with some fairly wild projections, that "
with known lithium “resources” at 39.5 million tons, we get about 50 years of supply with 100 Gigafactories, which is a bit more comforting, but still not exactly a viable long-term solution".
If you think that lithium ion technology will be the best technology in 50 years, I believe you are being overly pessimistic concerning battery development, as even today, the Japanese car makers themselves are pursuing metal air batteries as a preferred battery approach for greater energy density and lower cost. There is also a more balanced view of the matter by Bloomberg in a recent news report:
We're Going to Need More Lithium
In that article, there seems to be consensus that there is an ample supply of lithium in the planet and that the real issue is bringing on enough supply capacity in the meantime to meet demand. When electric car sales ramp up, I am confident from what I am reading that businesses will meet the challenge where there is money to be made.
As for your cited nasa expert in calling into question the accuracy of the overwhelming climate scientists conclusion that climate change is real and certain, it seems that he is paid by the oil industry to represent their views:
Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer's oil-industry ties
In my second and last job of 31 years, I was tasked with making projections regarding new technologies and their prospects for success in given time frames. In that position, I met with virtually all the major automobile manufacturers world wide that sell vehicles in the U.S. It didn't take too long to realize who the guys were that represented the industry
association views, but when meeting with the companies individually, the real story always came out. In fact, I thought the German manufacturers summed up the situation where certain paid engineering consultants testified at hearings representing the most negative views of possible advancements in given time periods, by labeling these consultants as "you pay, we say" representatives. Over time, and just before their last bankruptcy, General Motors possesssed the chief negative outlook among the automobile manufacturers of what new technology could do and what it would cost. And they also spearheaded the industry
association views using such contactors. That they went bankrupt was no surprise to me. Fortunately, the bankruptcy and following bail out was a good thing in my view, as today, GM is very different, with good leadership at the top in Mary Bara and an upper management to match her capabilities. GM always had and still has very competent engineers, but now they are properly challenged by good management.
Guys like the one you are citing as evidence that climate change is unreliable are paid by the oil industry to represent their point of view in a world where they must well know by now they are on the way out in terms of propelling light duty vehicles worldwide. Cherry picking guys who represent your view without properly vetting them ususally doesn't end up being convincing.
The engineers at GM today are very bullish on electric vehicles and they are making dramatic strides in large cost reductions rapidly these days. If you think today represents the future, you are very wrong, from what I am seeing and hearing.
70bigblockdodge has it right.
