Differences Between Environmental Justice and Climate Justice: Biden Administration Has Conflated Them

     Although climate justice is often considered a type or subset of environmental justice, there are important differences. One very simple difference is that in many cases of environmental justice, there is more certainty about the risk. The polluting entity is close to those that entity is harming. Ambiguity in those cases is not an issue. However, with climate justice, assumptions are made that are very difficult to quantify such as how much of the risk is attributable to natural climate change and regular extreme weather. Climate change is an influence, often a source among many other sources of harm. Conflating the two opens up the argument to other odd forms of “justice” such as ‘improper building in vulnerable areas justice,’ ‘improper wildfire prevention justice,’ or ‘improper flood control justice.’  

According to Wikipedia climate justice:

“…focuses on the unequal impacts of climate change on marginalized or otherwise vulnerable populations. Climate justice seeks to achieve an equitable distribution of both the burdens of climate change and the efforts to mitigate climate change.”

     Both environmental justice and climate justice are concerned with disproportional effects on those marginalized or vulnerable populations, but climate justice cases are far vaguer in determining the often multiple sources of those effects and their relative contributions. Climate justice has been described in two forms:

“procedural justice, which emphasizes fair, transparent and inclusive decision making, and distributive justice, which places the emphasis on who bears the costs of both climate change and the actions taken to address it.”

     The goal of climate justice is to address the rights and obligations of individuals, corporations, and governments, to those marginalized and vulnerable populations. But before they can be addressed, they need to be assessed, and that process is wrought with uncertainties. Climate justice is full of vague assumptions and hard-to-quantify metrics like intergenerational equity, legacy responsibility, and other issues of so-called attribute science. Disproportionality of cause and burden is a good way to describe the legacy responsibility argument of climate justice. However, using similar logic, one could argue that countries that improved the world with inventions, processes, and aid efforts, including deriving ways to mitigate climate change, are disproportionately benefiting the world. The cause of all that climate change also benefited all people. It is a bit of a vague argument but what I think I am trying to say here is that while I understand that people affected by climate change like those islanders losing their land to sea level rise and I think they deserve help and compensation, I tend to mistrust attribute science because it seems to make a criminal out of corporations that are very necessary to our society that just happen to pollute. Sure, they have a civil case, it may be argued, but I have seen attribute science being wielded to point the blame and to vilify. In the case of intergenerational equity, I think we do have a responsibility to future generations to protect the environment and conserve resources. We should also keep in mind that quantifying intergenerational equity is no easy matter. At the COP29 meeting in progress now U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres met with affected islanders and presented their problem as an injustice done to them:

“You have every right to be angry, and I am too. You are on the sharp end of a colossal injustice. An injustice that sees the very future of your islands threatened by rising seas; your people pounded by record hurricanes; your economies torn apart,” Mr. Guterres said.

     Environmental justice, on the other hand, has many concrete examples, the bulk of them legacy examples. Locating housing projects near highways, refineries, landfills, power plants, and industry provides many environmental justice examples. It has been described as an amalgam of the environmental movement and the civil rights movement. It is synonymous with environmental rights for minorities and the vulnerable. It acknowledges injustices done in the past to minorities such as slavery, colonialism, and inadequate basic human rights.

     At the core of environmental justice are disproportionate impacts and social vulnerability. Environmental justice should continue to be a factor in project evaluation. This is important. Underserved and disadvantaged communities need support. Absolutely nobody wants to be exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, especially in their own house or on their own property, whether rented or owned.

     Lee Carter, in the 2005 textbook: Environmental Health: From Global to Local defines environmental justice holistically:

 

“The vision of environmental justice is the development of a holistic community-based, participatory, and integrative paradigm for achieving healthy and sustainable communities for all peoples.”

 

     While both environmental justice and climate justice have been permeated by activists, it is the climate activists with more uncertain and flimsy cases that have been more intense in activism.

     According to Biden’s April 2023 Executive Order 14096:

 

“Environmental justice” means the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people: (i) are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (ii) have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.

 

 

 

Has the Biden Administration Been Funneling Money to Climate Justice Activist Groups in the Guise of Environmental Justice?

 

     According to a recent report by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, the answer is yes. The lawmakers argued that giving money to activists as part of the Inflation Reduction Act is “akin to a taxpayer-funded lobbying operation.” I would agree. The report also notes:

 

“The lists of organizations selected to receive funding or partner with those organizations include environmental activist organizations that work to influence public and elected officials to adopt their often-extreme views, such as completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels, which Americans recognize are an important part of an all-of-the-above energy mix,” the report states. “While some selected organizations include other types of entities such as institutes of high education, many are special interest environmental nonprofit organizations. These organizations’ views and missions often align with those of the administration, in effect using taxpayer dollars to promote the Biden-Harris radical energy agenda.”

 

“Simply put, the EPA is awarding taxpayer dollars to special interest groups committed to a radical energy agenda to “educate” others and drive public outreach, as well as assist those it engages with to influence government policymaking and outcomes.”

 

“As the IRA and the EPA’s funding announcements state that these awards will go to“community-based nonprofit organizations,”15 Americans may expect selectees to be small, local organizations with limited resources. Some selectees may meet this description. However, many selectees and partners already receive substantial amounts of funding from massive green groups and environmental advocacy organizations.”

 

     One group, The Climate Justice Alliance received $50 million from the administration. They have stated goals of eliminating the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. They have also advocated for Palestinians. The report also claims that the grants were awarded too quickly, without enough vetting for extremist groups, and that they failed to safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse.

 

     I really think this was a bad choice of the Biden administration, whether the intention was to facilitate real environmental justice issues, and they just did not do proper due diligence, or whether the intention was to deliberately support radical climate activism. Advocacy groups are involved in politics, not science, not technology, and not problem-solving.

     The bottom line here is that taxpayers should not be funding radical climate advocacy groups in the guise of environmental justice. Indeed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency inquiry to users of X to identify government waste went all out against environmental justice appropriations. The '$50 million via "environmental justice" for an anti-Israel group' they mentioned is likely the IRA grant for Climate Justice Alliance mentioned. I agree that should be cut. However, they seem to want to cut anything having to do with environmental justice. While I am sure, other environmental justice cuts can be justified, I doubt that cutting the whole idea out of government is a good idea.

 

 

Should “Justice” Apply to the Poor Who Are Disadvantaged by Clean Energy Subsidies, Energy Access in Developing Countries, and Higher Electricity Prices Due to Renewable Energy Growth?

 

     Rich people pollute more than poor people. However, rich people can also afford to mitigate their carbon footprints more easily than poor people. Thus, it can be argued that clean energy subsidies for rooftop solar and EVs advantage the wealthy over the poor since they can take advantage of the cost-savings while the poor generally cannot. Should that be considered an environmental justice issue against low-income people? Should withholding fossil fuel financing to developing countries be considered an environmental(ist) justice offense since the poor are disadvantaged economically by not having access to energy that is cheaper and reliable, though higher emitting? The poor also bear the brunt of higher electricity prices due to the growth of renewable energy. Should that be a justice issue as well. As the definition of climate justice noted above in this post states:

“Climate justice seeks to achieve an equitable distribution of both the burdens of climate change and the efforts to mitigate climate change.”

     The examples I give above are clearly disproportionate impacts on the poor due to “efforts to mitigate climate change.” Thus, by that definition, the answer to those questions should be yes.

    

 

 

References:

 

Biden-Harris Admin Routed ‘Environmental Justice’ Cash To Left-Wing Activists, House Report Details. Nick Pope. Daily Caller. November 4, 2024. Biden-Harris Admin Routed ‘Environmental Justice’ Cash To Left-Wing Activists, House Report Details

Exposing the Green Group Giveaway Behind the Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Programs. U.S. House of Representatives. Energy & Commerce Committee. November 2024. E+C EJ REPORT | PDF | United States Environmental Protection Agency | American Government

Climate justice. Wikipedia. Climate justice - Wikipedia

Environmental Health: From Global to Local. Ed. Howard Frumkin. Wiley. 2005.

DOGE: Examples of federal spending that could be on the chopping block. Casey Harper. The Center Square. November 15, 2024. DOGE: Examples of federal spending that could be on the chopping block

An Environmental Baseline: Summary and Review of Chapter 4 of Eco-pragmatism by Daniel A. Farber (1999, University of Chicago Press, pgs. 93-132)

     In this chapter, Farber first states that feasibility is the first and main criterion for deciding whether an environmental protection goal is achievable. Determining feasibility involves determining economic feasibility. If the costs of environmental protection exceed the benefits, then that is a recipe for disaster. First, feasibility, then cost-benefit analysis. While cost-benefit analysis may be a mechanical means to making the inevitable tradeoffs of environmental analysis, it is often inadequate by itself. It is better as a secondary approach to back-up feasibility analysis.

     Legal scholar Cass Sunstein has been a proponent and expert on cost-benefit analysis since the 90s. I have read some of his fascinating work in this area. Sunstein pioneered the use of cost-benefit analysis, noting that it was not just useful in situations addressing market failures, but that it could be useful for any environmental policy analysis, and it should be required by government regulators, which it now is. However, cost-benefit analysis is not complete by itself.

 

“There are too many judgment calls and too many unquantified factors in environmental problems.”

 

Those unquantified factors must also play a role. Sunstein believes that public values should trump private preferences in environmental policy analysis. Where market failures are the main concern, cost-benefit analysis can be done on purely economic terms, but where risks are inequitably distributed, such as in cases where certain groups of people bear more environmental harm burdens, or in environmental justice issues, economic analysis alone will not suffice. Where to start is an important consideration. This involves a presumptive environmental baseline. Farber writes:

 

“The commitments now embedded in federal law generally take an environmentalist baseline, with a presumption in favor of environmental protection. Sunstein would abandon this baseline for a more detached stance. The result would be to designate economic efficiency as the presumptive outcome, shifting the burden to those who advocate other values.”

 

Farber disagrees with Sunstein’s argument in favor of neutrality, arguing instead that counting the interests of polluters and those who bear the burdens of pollution equally does not remove value judgments as intended, but is rather a value judgment itself. Farber argues that the choice of a neutral baseline is dependent on cost-benefit analysis, which itself is dependent on willingness to pay (WTP). However, how much someone is willing to pay for environmental protection is not the only criteria available. There is also a willingness to accept (WTA). Studies have shown that there is often a big difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. According to studies, people are willing to accept double what they are willing to pay. Farber quotes a 1990 paper by Jack Knetsch:

 

“Asking people to accept payment for a degradation in the quantity or quality of a public good simply does not work in a contingent valuation survey under many conditions, yet substituting a WTP format where theory specifies a WTA format may grossly bias the findings.”

 

Farber argues that using WTP is basically equivalent to making a baseline that favors economic efficiency over environmental protection.

 

 

 

Environmental Baseline Choices

 

     Farber gives three choices of a baseline: common law, which gives the regulated party presumptive entitlement and is often equivalent to the pre-regulation status quo, neutrality, in which no presumptive entitlements are allotted, and a baseline based on the beneficiaries of potential regulation. Sunstein pointed out that common law is often unworkable. In terms of air and water pollution control, the dangers of carcinogens, and hazardous waste, the third baseline, that of the beneficiaries of environmental protection, has been the favored choice. Farber refers to this as an environmentalist baseline. He presents the usual arguments as an environmentalist regulatory approach vs. a libertarian deregulatory approach. While a neutral baseline may be appealing because it gives no advantages, it does not consider our rights to environmental protection to be more important than a company’s right to put those rights into question by polluting at certain levels.

     Farber calls the neutral baseline a fallacy. He gives the environmental law example of Boomer vs. Atlantic Cement Company, a 1970 New York decision, where a cement company, in conjunction with a nearby existing quarry, was built near residences. It is a nuisance law case that involves property rights as well. It is a very well-known case in American legal education. The residents complained about the effects of cracks in their houses from blasting at the quarry and the fine dust that would coat everything in its path and breathing it was probably not good as well. The concrete plant and quarry, however, were major employers in the area so they had beneficial economic effects on the region. The outcome was that the plant stayed open, and the people affected were generously compensated for the damage. The company had acquired the land in secret so there was no way for those stakeholders affected by the pollution to be involved in the hearing process. That is something that is not likely to happen in current times. Farber notes:

 

“To adopt a neutral baseline is not itself a neutral decision; it is based on a value judgment of symmetry between polluters and victims.”

 

     Farber advocates for a hybrid of cost-benefit analysis and feasibility analysis for defining a baseline. The cost-benefit analysis part favors an environmental baseline, which has been the default in many cases. The feasibility analysis provides a “reality check” of the cost-benefit analysis. Farber thinks that feasibility analysis does need some constraints to be most effective and that cost-benefit analysis should be used as a benchmark to determine what is feasible. It should not be too open-ended. Feasibility should ideally be practical and sensible.   

 

 

 

The Case for a Hybrid Approach of Cost-Benefit and Feasibility Analyses

 

     Environmentalists have not been fond of cost-benefit analysis, arguing that economic benefits should be weighted lower than environmental impacts. That is likely a useful argument in some cases but not in others. Cost-benefit analysis has been criticized for treating human lives as commodities. However, that is really the only way to quantify costs and benefits in a reasonably consistent manner. We have economic standards, and we have environmental standards. There is the market and there is the environment. Their interrelationships are only partially quantifiable and this limits the effectiveness of cost-benefit analysis. The uncertainty of assigning values often remains. Farber argues that we simply can’t reduce these issues to purely economic terms. Assigning values is equivalent to making judgment calls.

 

“If cost-benefit analysis is attacked for cold-bloodedness, feasibility analysis is often considered soft-headed and wedded to foolishly expensive methods of controlling environmental problems. Feasibility analysis is often attacked for requiring inefficient “command-and-control” regulations, in which the EPA directs particular firms to achieve the specific level of pollution control it considers feasible.”

 

The hybrid approach of cost-benefit and feasibility analysis should not be conflated with “command-and-control” methods that often over-regulate, he notes. This is simply an acknowledgment that economic feasibility, not just technological feasibility, should be a major part of feasibility analysis. Again, he notes that cost-benefit analysis by itself is limited. Combining the two in a hybrid approach is equivalent to a pragmatic approach. Both methods of analysis have particular merits. Cost-benefit analysis can be more easily standardized by carrying over assigned values from one case to another. Feasibility analysis has the advantage of being more useful in situations where the data is messy or scant and where social values are less easily quantified. Combining the approaches may to some extent guard against the pitfalls of each individual approach. Each approach makes value choices. The cost-benefit approach utilizes discount rates and valuation problems. These can be difficult to understand for those not used to evaluating problems in such a way. The hybrid approach adds in more understandable metrics like significant risk, feasibility, and gross disproportionality. The case against using cost-benefit analysis alone is simply that we can’t leave environmental decisions to economists alone. Thus, he notes that cost-benefit analysis should assist rather than control regulatory decisions. It can provide a check on unreasonable regulation but it should not be the sole basis for the decision process.

 

“It {cost-benefit analysis} functions best as a critical resource to prevent misguided decisions, rather than as an effort to make hard social decisions on spreadsheets.”

 

     Judges and the courts are also guided by interpretations, often canonical, of the legislative intent of statutes like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Interpreting ambiguous statutes has been a point of argument for decades. The recent reversal of the so-called Chevron Deference, while widely panned by environmentalists for shifting deference in ambiguous cases away from regulating agencies to Congress and the courts, will likely still defer to the expertise of the agencies in most cases. It is not likely to change legal interpretations when judges make decisions, although in cases of the political ideological makeup of judges, those with the most judges and cases and in the case of SCOTUS, the current conservative majority, will have more influence to interpret as they see fit. Judges are not experts in environmental science, so they are not expected to overrule those who are, at least in most cases. In the case of Congress, it is that body that has the final say and the power of rulemaking. Supporters of the recent SCOTUS decision say that it puts the power of decision-making back where it should be, namely Congress, but also the courts, and takes it away from agency expertise. But it should not be forgotten that this is to be applied only where ambiguity is well-acknowledged.

     Farber notes that his hybrid approach is really at play in most current regulations (1999). He also notes that Congress often backslides on regulations by allowing extensions and variances. He says that is equivalent to slipping feasibility through the back door. He also quips that environmental policy has had an orientation that was too static and not dynamic enough. His principle for risk management is as follows:

 

“To the extent feasible without incurring costs grossly disproportionate to any benefit, the government should eliminate significant environmental risks”

 

That is a great, if necessarily vague, way to put it, and the bottom line of the chapter and this summary and review, I think.  

Peatland Management: Carbon Uptake, Methane Emissions, Drinking Water Reservoirs, Drainage Issues, and Uses

     According to Wikipedia:

“Peat is an accumulation of partially decayed vegetation or organic matter. It is unique to natural areas called peatlands, bogs, mires, moors, or muskegs.”

     Peat is a formative stage in the eventual formation of lignite coal. Peatlands have specific plant communities such as sphagnum moss. Peat is used in horticulture and gardening to help grow plants. By volume, there are about 4 trillion cubic meters of peat in the world. Global peatland ecosystems cover 3.7 million square kilometers (1.4 million square miles). They are considered to be the most efficient carbon sink on the planet. The peatland plants capture CO2 naturally released from the peat, maintaining an equilibrium. According to Wikipedia:

“In natural peatlands, the "annual rate of biomass production is greater than the rate of decomposition", but it takes "thousands of years for peatlands to develop the deposits of 1.5 to 2.3 m [4.9 to 7.5 ft], which is the average depth of the boreal [northern] peatlands",[2] which store around 415 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon (about 46 times 2019 global CO2 emissions).[12] Globally, peat stores up to 550 Gt of carbon, 42% of all soil carbon, which exceeds the carbon stored in all other vegetation types, including the world's forests, although it covers just 3% of the land's surface.”

     Centuries of burning peat for heat and draining peatlands for agriculture has emitted massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. There is a need for peatlands restoration and conservation.

     Peatlands vary with the types of plant material that decompose to make it up. Peat forms in acidic and anaerobic conditions. Most current peatlands formed about 12,000 years ago in high latitudes after the glaciers retreated. They also occur in some tropical and temperate regions. Peat accumulates at a rate of about 1mm per year. Thus, it is not a renewable resource since it regenerates very slowly.

     Peatlands in the form of bogs and other wetlands make up 50-70% of wetlands globally. Peatlands make up 3% of the Earth’s land and freshwater surface. Peatlands contain one-third of the world’s soil carbon and 10% of global freshwater resources. Around 7% of global peatlands have been exploited for agriculture and forestry. A 2024 paper increases that amount considerably:

 

“…at the global scale, ~11–13% of near-pristine peatlands have been lost due to drainage for croplands, forestry, grasslands production (to support livestock grazing and herbage production, or peat extraction.”

 

      The map below from PEATMAP, a GIS shapefile dataset, shows the global distribution of peatlands.

 

     Peat has many uses, past and present. It was once burned for heat. It was also used in medieval metallurgy. In Sweden, it is used to absorb excrement for farm animals kept indoors in winter. Importantly, peatlands are major drinking water sources, 4% of the global total. In the U.K. 43% of the population derives drinking water from peatlands. In Ireland, the total is 68%. Peatlands help with flood mitigation in some areas. Peat is also used in freshwater aquariums. Peat spas and peat baths are utilized traditionally for health in some European countries.

     About half of the northern peatlands are affected by permafrost and make up about 10% of permafrost lands and contain about 10% of permafrost carbon. Dry peat is a good insulator and helps protect permafrost from thawing.

 

 

Peatland Drainage: Increases Atmospheric CO2 but Also Decreases Atmospheric Methane

     When peatlands are drained for agriculture, forestry, or peat extraction the organic matter, previously underwater is exposed to air, and CO2 is released. Pristine undrained peatlands also emit significant amounts of methane as a result of anaerobic decomposition. The net effect of peatland drainage, however, is an increase in total greenhouse gases and global warming potential. According to Wikipedia:

“The global CO2 emissions from drained peatlands have increased from 1,058 Mton in 1990 to 1,298 Mton in 2008 (a 20% increase). This increase has particularly taken place in developing countries, of which Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea are the fastest-growing top emitters.”

 

Peat Fires

     The totals above do not include emissions from peat fires. Like coal fires, peat fires can burn under low moisture conditions. They can burn below ground and undetected for years. Burning of peatlands to clear land for agriculture such as planting trees for palm oil is a major source of atmospheric CO2 accumulation from places like Indonesia.

“It is estimated that in 1997, peat and forest fires in Indonesia released between 0.81 and 2.57 gigatonnes (0.89 and 2.83 billion short tons; 0.80 and 2.53 billion long tons) of carbon; equivalent to 13–40 percent of the amount released by global fossil fuel burning, and greater than the carbon uptake of the world's biosphere. These fires may be responsible for the acceleration in the increase in carbon dioxide levels since 1998.[70][71] More than 100 peat fires in Kalimantan and East Sumatra have continued to burn since 1997; each year, these peat fires ignite new forest fires above the ground.”

     Peat fires have been problematic in Canada and the Florida Everglades during droughts and in Russia during summer heatwaves. Peatland CO2 emissions, including peat fire emissions, are discussed below.

“…at least 4,000 Mton/CO2-eq./yr for south-east Asia). With 174 Mton/CO2-eq./yr, the EU is after Indonesia (500 Mton) and before Russia (161 Mton), the world's second-largest emitter of drainage-related peatland CO2 (excl. extracted peat and fires). Total CO2 emissions from the worldwide 500,000 km2 of degraded peatland may exceed 2.0 Gtons (including emissions from peat fires), which is almost 6% of all global carbon emissions.”

 

      Thus, peatland management, restoration, extinguishing, and preventing peat fires can have a major effect in reducing global carbon emissions. 

 

 

Restoring, Rewetting, and Reforesting Peatlands to Improve Carbon Uptake and Quantifying Net Greenhouse Gas Effects

     Peatlands are protected as wetlands. The U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity recognizes peatlands as ecosystems to be preserved and protected. The main method of restoring peatlands is simply blocking drainage channels and allowing natural vegetation to recover. This allows peatlands to be rewetted. A November 2023 paper in Nature Scientific Reports exploring peatland rewetting in Sweden notes:

“Drainage for forestry has created ~ 1 million km of artificial waterways in Sweden, making it one of the largest human-induced environmental disturbances in the country. These extensive modifications of both peatland and mineral soil dominated landscapes still carry largely unknown, but potentially enormous environmental legacy effects”

     Since ditching is commonly used to drain peatlands, rewetting them involves ditch management. Blocking off is the main method. Ditch cleaning involves removing the sediments accumulated in ditches and the increased vegetation along the ditch. This is done in forestry to increase the survival rate of newly planted seedlings. It has been shown to have some negative consequences since sediment and nutrients increase downstream. Its greenhouse gas balance is also not well known. Finland, Russia, and Sweden have the most peatland drained for forestry in the world. Much of it was drained in the first half of the 1900s. Peatland rewetting still needs more studies to quantify its effects better. This is especially true since rewetting increases methane emissions as well as reducing CO2 emissions. The effects of rewetting can vary considerably by area. The researchers in Sweden compared cleaned, left-alone, and filled ditches in consideration of the best way to manage those 1 million km of ditches. Ditch cleaning also affects water quality and its effect on sediment, nutrient, and metal loads can be considerable.

“While ditch cleaning in general seems to have had a mitigating influence on the negative effects of the clear-cut for most variables, the 700% increase in sediment load is potentially detrimental to downstream fish habitats and spawning grounds.”

“Continued monitoring will be necessary to provide a more solid base for future management decisions, and in the meantime, these management decisions should be made more cautiously and carefully given the little published information we have on their outcomes in a Swedish context.”

     Studies also show that some effects of rewetting and restoring will take years to accurately evaluate and other factors may prevent drained peatlands from returning fully to their previous ecological state.

     A study published in October 2024 in Nature Communications Earth & Environment explored the CO2 and methane emissions of these drainage ditches. The authors found that ditch methane emissions result in retaining about 12% of the emissions of the undrained peatlands while making up 3.1-4.4% of the peatland area. Thus, the ditch emissions are 3-4 times greater than area alone would account for.

“{The authors} conducted a global meta-analysis by compiling annual methane emissions from paired near-pristine peatlands and terrestrial portion of drained peatlands and ditches to address this issue. Results showed that ditches occupy approximately 3.8 (95% confidence interval: 3.1~4.4)% of all drained peatlands. Ditches emit 695 (511~898) kg ha−1 yr−1 methane overall, with the highest emissions observed in (sub)tropics. Globally, ditch emissions offset approximately 12 (10~14)% for reductions in methane emissions from peatland drainage. Our findings demonstrate the importance of including ditch methane emissions to quantify emission factors for regional to global peatlands affected by drainage.”

 

Data from the paper are shown below.

 

References:

 

Peat. Wikipedia. Peat - Wikipedia

Ditch emissions partially offset global reductions in methane emissions from peatland drainage. Dezhao Gan, Zelong Zhang, Huinan Li, Dongsheng Yu, Zheng Li, Ruijun Long, Shuli Niu, Hongchao Zuo, Xianhong Meng, Jinsong Wang & Lei Ma. Nature Communications Earth & Environment volume 5, Article number: 640 (October 29, 2024). Ditch emissions partially offset global reductions in methane emissions from peatland drainage | Communications Earth & Environment

Potential of continuous cover forestry on drained peatlands to increase the carbon sink in Finland. Aleksi Lehtonen, Kyle Eyvindson, Kari Härkönen, Kersti Leppä, Aura Salmivaara, Mikko Peltoniemi, Olli Salminen, Sakari Sarkkola, Samuli Launiainen, Paavo Ojanen, Minna Räty & Raisa Mäkipää .Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 15510 (2023). Potential of continuous cover forestry on drained peatlands to increase the carbon sink in Finland | Scientific Reports

Consequences of rewetting and ditch cleaning on hydrology, water quality and greenhouse gas balance in a drained northern landscape. Hjalmar Laudon, Virginia Mosquera, Karin Eklöf, Järvi Järveoja, Shirin Karimi, Alisa Krasnova, Matthias Peichl, Alexander Pinkwart, Cheuk Hei Marcus Tong, Marcus B Wallin, Alberto Zannella & Eliza Maher Hasselquist. Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 20218 (2023). Consequences of rewetting and ditch cleaning on hydrology, water quality and greenhouse gas balance in a drained northern landscape | Scientific Reports

 

 

Perspectives on Environmental Law and Policy. Summary and Review of Chapter 2: Environmental Law and Policy, by James Salzman and Barton H. Thompson Jr. (Foundation Press, 2003, (pgs. 11-39)

     The chapter introduces six themes and three frameworks of environmental law. The themes are scientific uncertainty, market failures (including public goods, the tragedy of the commons, collective action, and free riders and externalities), mismatched scales, cognitive biases, sustainable development, and protected interests. The three frameworks are environmental rights, utilitarianism cost-benefit analysis, and environmental justice.

 

Scientific Uncertainty

     Environmental policy considerations frequently encounter scientific uncertainty. Some issues like climate change and its impacts involve a high degree of uncertainty. Single environmental problems may have multiple causes with magnitudes that are difficult to quantify.  

“Uncertainties over the magnitude of environmental problems, their causes, and future impacts bedevil law and policy.”

     Often, we are faced with the choice of acting to pre-empt potential environmental harms, acting to prevent them without scientific certainty or to approve them while cautiously gathering more data to reduce uncertainty in a kind of trial-and-error approach. The authors give two basic strategies for addressing scientific uncertainty. The first strategy is simply to develop better information. The second strategy accords with the pre-emptive reduction of potential harm and is known as the precautionary principle. While this approach may seem sensible on the surface it often results in unnecessary prevention of potential benefits as well as in preventing potential harms that are later revealed as less harmful. There are many examples of this, and I have written about them when examining what I see as the two main approaches to risk: the precautionary principle and what I call the harm-benefit feasibility approach.  The authors do acknowledge the limitations of the precautionary principle, noting that it often “councils inaction in the face of uncertainty, no matter what the cost, and that it makes it difficult to choose between risks. These risk-risk choices where each choice has some risks are common in environmental policy considerations. The question is often how well the problem must be understood before taking action. Policy must consider science, but it must also consider effects on the economy and on costs that may affect the poor.

 

 

Market Failures

     Environmental protection often must consider economic effects. If one state or country has lax environmental rules compared to others, then businesses may choose to be there to avoid regulatory costs, giving them an economic advantage over other states or countries. Proper evaluation should include some kind of quantification of the value of environmental protection, which should be seen as a public good, something in the public’s interest. As a “good,” environmental protection can be assigned an economic value and can be seen as having a supply and demand dynamic where costs rise and fall with scarcity or abundance. If environmental protection becomes scarce, the cost of polluting should rise. That often does not happen at all. That is apparently what they mean by market failure, that the market mechanisms for environmental protection are not leading to the desired result which is increased environmental protection.

     The authors give four “distortions that result in market failure. The first is public goods. This involves the quantification of environmental protection. Clean air, clean water, and ecosystem services are clearly in the public interest. They are valuable but they have no market value and no price. Policy, however, often considers and estimates their value and price.

     The second distortion given is the tragedy of the commons which is basically a metaphor. The traditional example is a growing sheep population grazing all the available public grazing space, resulting in a loss of forage. If many people or businesses are competing to produce a clearly finite resource, such issues can arise. The atmosphere as a dumping ground for greenhouse gases has been a common example for a long time. The issue is prevalent where there is open access to what are often seen as public resources, such as farmers tapping a communal groundwater aquifer for irrigating crops. How should that aquifer be protected against over-producing?

     The third distortion given is collective action and free riders. This collective action problem occurs when a large number of entities (people or businesses) are sharing a resource or a sink (such as the atmosphere). The more entities involved, the more complex and costly is the effort to reach consensus. If some entities voluntarily decide to reduce their exploitation of the resource or sink, then others may be empowered to do the opposite to get even more market share and make more money. These entities are known as free riders.

 

“Any solution to commons problems must overcome both the high transaction costs in reaching agreement among many parties (collective action) and counterproductive behavior by parties outside the agreement (free riders).”

 

     The last market distortion given is externalities. Externalities are costs that must be paid that are external to normal operating costs. In the context of environmental protection externalities are basically regulatory costs for businesses. They may also be environmental benefits of a protected environment that has benefits such as ecosystem service, recreational value, water purification, or flood control. They give a wetland as an example. In this case, the environmental benefit is seen as a positive externality. In the case of pollution that is emitted into the atmosphere, there is potential harm that increases with the amount of pollution emitted. This regulatory cost in the face of environmental laws is known as a negative externality. When the costs are acknowledged and paid by the emitters or in the case of a positive externality where beneficial areas are preserved and protected at some cost, this is known as the internalization of externalities. If all negative externalities were internalized, then it would be more costly to pollute, and environmental protection would be reinforced. If all positive externalities were internalized, then benefits like ecosystem services and resource conservation would be reinforced by being rewarded for preserving or enhancing those benefits. One of the challenges of internalizing externalities is properly valuing the harms and benefits. Another is consideration of the costs of regulation or of preserving benefits. The authors note:

 

“One of the key goals of environmental law id to bring environmental externalities to the marketplace.”

    

 

 

Mismatched Scales

  

     The divergence of natural boundaries and political boundaries is an example of mismatched scales. Water and air move through the atmosphere and along water bodies. Only natural boundaries affect where they go. The issue of pollution drifting from one state to another is pertinent. The EPA’s ‘good neighbor’ provision of the Clean Air Act requires that a state whose pollution drifts to another state must submit documentation to the EPA indicating how it is reducing that air pollution that drifts to nearby states. In 2024 the Supreme Court put a hold on the provision. Its enforcement has also gone back and forth with changing political parties.

     There are many examples of mismatched scales in the form of these geographical spillovers. Acid rain is a big one where sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants drift with the prevailing weather to cause environmental harm in nearby states and countries. The connectivity of the ecosystem does not always follow geography such as where migrating bird populations may be affected by actions taken in a specific place. Another example given is climate change, where fossil fuel emissions may contribute to other problems in other places such as islanders or coastal dwellers losing their land due to sea level rise.

     Mismatched political and natural boundaries also make management challenging. Each locality and state affected has its own rules that must be integrated with federal rules. Thus, jurisdiction is often an issue that makes collective action costly and much slower than it needs to be. We see this a lot with electricity transmission and power operators like regional transmission authorities and power grid operators and with pipeline developers and FERC who must get many different entities on board with transboundary projects. This has resulted in bogged-down, costly, slow, uneven, and inconsistent project development. There is little doubt that we need permit reform to address some of these issues.

     The authors also mention the issue of federal public land use. Much of that land in the U.S. is in the West and use of such land is regulated. There have been several backlashes against the notion that some of those lands were being overgrazed by ranchers. Such backlash has become a part of the anti-federal government movement. Remember, the Bundys?

     States or countries that have different pollution standards are another variant of mismatched scales based on political boundaries. There is no doubt that companies relocate to take advantage of lower regulatory costs , sometimes due to lower pollution standards. In some cases, it is difficult to blame them. If one wanted to build a polluting entity, such as a refinery or a power plant, I am guessing that it would be more expensive to build in California as opposed to Texas. Elon Musk moved Tesla headquarters, and Chevron moved their headquarters from California to Texas, no doubt in part for a regulatory cost advantage. Musk had less to gain than Chevron and likely had other reasons as well.

     The authors note that scale problems also occur in time. Future harm from present action is difficult to predict but must be considered. They give two examples where the potential future harm is global: climate change and ozone depletion.

 

 

 

Cognitive Biases  

      

     Environmental policy has to consider the possibilities and probabilities of environmental impact, which are often not easy to discern due to scientific uncertainty. We all know that uncertainty can be and often is exploited. Arriving at decisions and developing nuanced opinions based on the best science can be difficult. Many people develop cognitive biases that are often seen as irrational. This brings us into the realms of psychology, human behavior, and risk perception. We often conclude that some things are less or more dangerous than they really are. That is known as the risk perception gap. These result in failures to properly evaluate quantitative data and real risk. Add to these that there are many ideological groups seeking to influence one’s views on environmental protection. They often use numbers to propagandize their cases. This includes those who seek more protection and those who seek less protection. Perceptions are often not just based on facts but also on existing cognitive biases. These biases can result in distortions which the authors call egocentric interpretations of fairness.

 

 

Sustainable Development

     The goal of sustainable development is to deeply consider sustainability in the process of development, to balance economic growth while minimizing environmental impact. While development is a threat to the environment, poverty is also a boon to alleviating poverty.

“By linking environmental protection and poverty alleviation to economic development, sustainable development forged the key insight that development and environmental protection efforts must be mutually reinforcing.”

     They also point out that sustainable development considers intergenerational equity by considering potential impacts on future generations. The goal of development is not simply growth, but to give people access to what they need to survive and prosper. The goal of sustainable development is to do that in a manner where unnecessary harms are prevented. We must also develop within the constraints of the environment in terms of resources and pollution. Decoupling of pollution and carbon emissions from economic growth has been occurring for decades now in developed countries, especially in the 21 years since this book was published. In many cases, consumption of energy, pollution, and carbon emissions intensity have dropped.

 

 

Protected Interests

     Clashes of competing interests are common in environmental policy debates. Protected interests include the interests of future generations. The interests of ecological entities such as a protected species are included. Environmental advocates and regulators may be considered to be proxies of protected species in some cases.

 

 

Three Analytical Frameworks of Environmental Law

     The three analytical frameworks of environmental law introduced are environmental rights, utilitarianism and cost-benefit analysis, and environmental justice. These frameworks are used in consideration of whether to permit activities of various kinds that could have environmental impacts. Policymakers typically use one, two, or all three of these general frameworks. Pragmatists may use all three. Utilitarianism is always a consideration, and cost-benefit analysis is required at the federal level for rulemaking. Consideration of the impacts of the policy implementation is also required. An analysis is done to determine potential impacts on different populations when screening for environmental justice risks.

    

 

 

Environmental Rights

 

     It certainly seems logical and sensible to assume that humans have a right to some degree of environmental protection. Such a right is enshrined in the UN Declaration. They note that the idea of environmental rights helped to lead to the establishment of the federal regulatory apparatus, led by the EPA.

     Realistically, we cannot get rid of all pollution, but we can reduce it to less harmful levels. Thus, we cannot guarantee a pollution-free environment for all. The costs would be far too high. Thus, we have to accept compromises and tradeoffs.

     Should future people have a right to a clean environment, or should we be required to conserve dwindling natural resources for them? Another very important consideration is how this could happen and to what degree.

     Environmental rights can be of different varieties. Anthropocentric rights concern the rights of humans. Biocentric rights concern the rights of species and biological entities. Eco-centric rights concern the rights of ecosystems. It is debatable whether the last two concerns should be regarded as rights since species and ecosystems are not social or political entities.

     Environmental rights could also clash with economic rights, the right to employment, property rights, or the right to self-determination. Thus, the environmental rights framework must also consider potentially competing rights.

 

 

 

Utilitarianism and Cost-Benefit Analysis

 

     This framework considers and compares regulatory costs to societal benefit. It is not easy to do but standard methods have been developed. The goal is to derive a monetary value for each coat and benefit and determine if the benefits exceed the costs or vice versa. Benefits such as avoided medical costs, lives or species saved, and aesthetic value are tabulated against the costs of the regulation such as loss of employment, reduction of development, and cost of pollution abatement equipment. If a regulation is designed to save human lives, then a different method may be used such as calculating the cost per life saved. This involves utilizing the statistical value of a human life, which differs in different places due to economic constraints.

     Cost-benefit analysis involves determining the costs and benefits of different policy alternatives. As noted, this is now a requirement for federal environmental policy.

     Tradeoffs are hard to avoid and are nearly always a feature of environmental arguments. New regulations can lead to higher product prices. higher energy bills, or less power grid reliability. They can also lead to less money being spent on competing societal needs. Cost-benefit analysis is hampered by the difficulty of getting all parties to agree on the assigned cost or benefit values that underlie each tradeoff. Another issue mentioned is that the costs of a regulation are often incurred at the time of implementation, but the benefits won’t be realized until some point in the future. Money is generally more valuable in the near term and that is another consideration.

 

“Standard economic analysis states that these future benefits should be discounted – i.e., given a reduced value compared to current costs and benefits, because (1) most people would prefer a dollar today to a dollar next year and (2) any monies saved today by not adopting a regulation can be invested to generate a larger dollar sum in the future.”

 

     Economists often disagree on what this discount rate should be. Some argue for the private discount rate considered individuals and businesses in economic rate of return. Others argue for a social discount rate that does not reduce the value of future benefits as much.

     Scientific uncertainty also plagues cost-benefit analysis. This can make cost-benefit analysis seem like a crude way to estimate true costs and benefits, which are often less apparent. After expected values are determined for each uncertain cost and benefit, statistical methods like sensitivity analysis may be applied to determine cost-benefit balance. Worst-case scenarios may be explored as well to help mitigate uncertainty. In any case, while cost-benefit analysis is very valuable and as I have argued before should be the default approach in most situations, it does have a high margin of error in a sense in that uncertainty levels often remain high for many variables.

 

 

 

Environmental Justice

 

     The third framework is environmental justice. Environmental justice considers which groups of people bear the burdens of environmental harm, but also of environmental regulation, Usually, we see it related to harm, and rarely, if ever, encounter it in terms of the burden of regulations. Certain socio-economic classes, or disenfranchised groups like African Americans, often live in certain areas and if those areas are chosen for economic development or other activities that produce local pollution, then that is a huge concern to those communities. Economically disparaged communities may have poorer health in general and so be more susceptible to the harms of pollution.

     Ideally, such burdens should be distributed equally among all populations but for many reasons that is not often the case. In extreme cases one might term environmental justice issues as environmental racism, but I believe such cases are rare these days, although they may have occurred more often in the past. Most environmental justice issues are issues from the past or legacy environmental justice issues. President Clinton was the first to require that environmental justice be incorporated into decision-making. It should also be noted that even though there may be multiple reasons why environmentally dangerous facilities are located near minority and poor communities, there is little disagreement that they are located in these communities. Again, the vast majority of this siting happened far into the past before such ideas as environmental justice began to be considered. The co-location of housing developments and industrial facilities in the past has led to many disproportionate effects on these communities.

     Consideration of these distributional impacts is now also required by federal law. I believe it was Obama who made that requirement, which Trump did not change, and which Biden emphasized in many areas.

     Some examples of less-considered environmental justice issues include emissions trading where one company is allowed to pollute by trading their emissions allowances to another company that reduces their emissions instead could lead to pollution remaining in the disenfranchised community. Other examples are the disproportionate effects of regulations that might result in higher costs for minority and poor communities. Another example is that of renewable energy subsidies being far more available and advantageous to wealthy communities. In that case, the benefits are often limited to the wealthy and exclude the minority and poor communities.

 

 

 

     

Solid-State Batteries Inch Nearer to Mass Production Stage: CATL, BYD, Toyota, Mercedes, and Samsung are Main Players

     Solid-state batteries are smaller, lighter, and safer. China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL) is readying up to manufacture solid-state lithium batteries. CATL is a world leader in lithium-ion technology. They plan to achieve small-scale production by 2027. They plan to make lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries with an impressive 40% increase in energy density to 500Wh/kg. Just a few weeks ago I wrote about Li-S battery technology but did not include much of CATL’s efforts. However, as I noted, charging speed and life cycle still have challenges. With the successful mitigation of the polysulfide shuttling effect, the cycle life issue should be able to be overcome. CATL’s production stage began with 1Ah samples and then moved on to 10Ah. Now they are working with 20Ah samples in order to explore actually producing the batteries. 20Ah is the pouch battery size that will go into EVs. Li Zinan wrote a great article for Late Post that explains the progress of solid-state batteries and CATL’s efforts and challenges. The quotes are from the article.

“Zeng Yuqun, chairman of CATL, divided the R&D progress of solid-state batteries into nine levels, and he said at the power battery conference in September this year that CATL is currently at level 4, and the goal is to increase to level 7-8 by 2027 to achieve low-volume production of all-solid-state batteries.”

“CATL's planning timeline is similar to that of Toyota, LG Energy Solution, Samsung SDI, etc., and slightly faster than BYD. But Zeng Yuqun made a rare high-profile claim in September that CATL's research was "a big step ahead" of its rivals, and in English it was "second to none."

     The liquid lithium-ion batteries currently in use have limitations on energy density (about 350 Wh/kg) that are unlikely to be overcome. Solid-state lithium batteries may be an option for aircraft of some kinds, but liquid lithium won’t be. Indeed, solid-state lithium batteries will be the likely future of lithium batteries.

“Solid-state batteries, that is, the liquid electrolyte (mainly lithium hexafluorophosphate) commonly used in lithium batteries is replaced with a solid-state electrolyte. The performance of solid-state electrolytes is more stable and safe, which allows the use of lithium metal with higher energy density but more dangerous chemical properties as a negative electrode (currently graphite) and a high-nickel ternary material with higher lithium content as a positive electrode, doubling the upper limit of energy density of lithium batteries to more than 700Wh/kg.”

     Thus, we can see there is the potential to double the current lithium energy density with solid-state batteries.

“Wu Kai said in the middle of last year, "If Toyota says that it can produce all-solid-state batteries today, I am skeptical, and no one in the industry currently has the ability to mass-produce all-solid-state batteries." As for whether it will be mass-produced in 2027, as a technician, it is difficult for me to say accurately.”

“However, in March this year, Wu Kai, chief scientist of CATL, shared CATL's all-solid-state battery R&D progress at a battery industry technology forum. Half a year later, Zeng Yuqun disclosed the timetable for "small-scale mass production of all-solid-state batteries in 2027".

     Toyota also announced that it would mass-produce solid-state batteries in 2027. However, as the Late Post article in Chinese notes: Toyota has been touting solid-state batteries since 2018 and just now has finally started talking about manufacturing, The article also points out that there are semi-solid-state batteries (like some I wrote about in my Li-S article) and full solid-state batteries, like the ones CATL plans to make. Like Toyota, CATL chose Li-S batteries as its solid-state battery since they have the “highest performance ceiling and the fastest mass production progress.” The three contenders for solid-state lithium batteries are sulfide, oxide, and polymer.

“These three technical routes have corresponding basic shortcomings. The polymer electrolyte needs to be heated to 60°C to obtain sufficient conductivity, which is difficult to use under normal working conditions. low conductivity of oxide electrolytes; The conductivity of lithium ions in sulfide electrolytes is similar to that of liquids, but they are easily oxidized to produce toxic gases. In recent years, the industry has also produced new technical routes such as halides, and as far as we know, BYD is currently focusing on the research and development of halide solid-state batteries.”

     Some problems with sulfide batteries in addition to the polysulfide shuttling effect which produces dendrites that can short-circuit the battery in time, are the increased distance between electrolyte and electrodes which can make charging slow. There are two other problems to be overcome. Sulfide electrolytes can react with the water vapor in the air producing toxic gases and decreasing battery conductivity. Sulfides are also expensive. The final problem to be overcome is difficulty in manufacturing since existing lithium-ion facilities cannot be used for full solid-state batteries. The manufacturing process needs to be re-invented, which CATL is working to do. As I noted in the Li-S article, that is not a problem with semi-solid-state batteries like those about to be produced by Lyten and others. CATL uses high pressure to squeeze the electrodes closer together to mitigate the charging issue.

“CATL has developed a technology of multi-layer material to wrap the cathode, which is equivalent to using a multi-layer film to limit the deformation of the electrode piece and improve the structural stability. The contact interface between the positive and negative electrodes and the solid electrolyte relies on a self-developed binder to maintain the fluidity of the ions, i.e., the conductivity.”

“CATL has developed a technology of multi-layer material to wrap the cathode, which is equivalent to using a multi-layer film to limit the deformation of the electrode piece and improve the structural stability. The contact interface between the positive and negative electrodes and the solid electrolyte relies on a self-developed binder to maintain the fluidity of the ions, i.e., the conductivity.”

     Other manufacturing breakthroughs include dry electrodes and isostatic integrated molding. However, there are still engineering challenges to manufacturing to be overcome including sustained high pressure to keep the electrodes in close contact and better battery wrapping and packaging materials and processes need to be developed and refined. It is expected that CATL will make about 0.5GWh of Li-S batteries in 2027, enough for thousands of EVs but still a relatively small amount for the market.

 

Samsung’s Solid-State Battery

     Samsung is working on a solid-state battery that hopes to achieve a 600-mile EV range, 9-minute charging, and a 20-year battery life. Samsung’s solid-state battery uses oxide instead of sulfide as the cathode, which means lower performance but also lower cost.

“We built a pilot line last year to mass-produce all-solid-state batteries by 2027,” said Samsung SDI, as reported by The Elec.

Initial battery batches have been delivered to EV manufacturers for testing. Unfortunately, as will be the case with other solid-state battery producers as well, the high initial production costs will make the initial EV prices very high. Thus, it is thought that solid-state batteries will be a luxury item for a few years before mass production really takes off. I have always said that the 2030s will be the decade when EVs improve enough in performance and price to truly be competitive with ICE vehicles.

 

 

BYD’s Solid-State Battery

     BYD head scientist and engineer Lian Yubo thinks that solid-state EV batteries could be in wide use in five years. BYD is a major manufacturer of lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries, having 75% of the market share in China. Yubo thinks LFP batteries will contribute to solid-state battery development. This early rollout will likely be for high-cost luxury EVs.  

 

 

Mercedes’ and Factorial’s Solid-State Battery

     Mercedes has joined forces with long-time U.S. solid-state battery developer Factorial to co-develop their solid-state FEST (Factorial Electrolyte System Technology) for Mercedes. The new battery tech is called Solstice. They expect an 80% increase in range and high thermal stability resulting in far less fire risk. With better thermal stability there is less need for cooling, which can also reduce costs. They expect 600 miles of range, 40% less weight, and a 33% reduction in size compared to current lithium-ion batteries.

 

 

Toyota’s Solid-State Battery

     As noted, Toyota has been working on solid-state batteries for a long time. They announced in 2023 that they plan to manufacture a solid-state battery that can charge in 10 minutes and get 745 miles of range on a full charge. Toyota has been promising solid-state batteries since 2021 and delays have been common. The latest is that they plan to introduce them in 2027/2028, with mass production coming after 2030. Volkswagen, Hyundai, Nissan, and BMW plan to offer solid-state batteries potentially before that. Below is Toyota’s battery tech roadmap from January 2024.

 

 

LPSO: A New Low-Cost Electrolyte

     Another improvement announced by Chinese scientists in July does not use lithium sulfide, but a sulfide solid electrolyte called LPSO. According to a July 2024 article in Interesting Engineering:

“The cost of sulfide solid electrolytes typically exceeds $195 per kilogram, far above the $50 per kilogram threshold necessary for widespread adoption. According to experts, this cost challenge arises from the elaborate synthesis process of these electrolytes, which heavily relies on costly Li2S.”

“This novel electrolyte is synthesized from two inexpensive compounds, bringing the ingredient cost down to just $14.42 per kilogram, which is less than 8 percent of the cost of raw materials for other sulfide solid electrolytes, according to SCMP.”

“Remarkably, LPSO retains the key benefits of the best-performing sulfide electrolytes, including compatibility with anodes that ensures performance stability. It pairs well with high-energy-density anodes such as lithium metal and silicon.”

 

Solid-State Batteries Still Have a Ways to Go Before They Are Truly Mass-Produced

     Despite the hype and breakthroughs, solid-state batteries will not be available to the average consumer anytime soon. They will begin as a battery for niche high-cost luxury or high-performance EVs. It will likely be well into the 2030s before they will be widely available to the average consumer. There are, however, some tweaks to lithium-ion technology that are considered to be semi-solid-state batteries such as lithium-silicon batteries and lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries. William Clavey writes for Top Speed that the reason solid-state battery progress has slowed comes down to cost-efficiency and reliability. The semi-solid-state choices will likely be produced in the near term as full solid-state development continues. Tesla is sticking with LFP batteries for now for their new-tech batteries due to lower cost, increased performance, and lower (but not nil) fire risk than current liquid lithium-ion batteries. Clavey also noted, referencing a meeting with silicon battery developer Group 14, that battery deployment will indeed be based on cost and reliability. That is why all vehicles still have lead-acid batteries for basic power needs aside from powering the vehicle. They are cheap and reliable.

 

 

References:

 

CATL goes all in for 500 Wh/kg solid-state EV battery mass production. Aman Tripathi. CATL goes all in for 500 Wh/kg solid-state EV battery mass production

Solid State Batteries Have Moved One Step Closer To Reality. William Clavey. Top Speed. November 7, 2024. Solid State Batteries Have Moved One Step Closer To Reality

Late Exclusive丨CATL all-solid-state battery began sample verification, with a team of thousands of people. Li Zinan. Ed. Cheng Manqi. November 6, 2024. Late Post. Late Exclusive丨CATL all-solid-state battery began sample verification, with a team of thousands of people

Samsung’s EV battery breakthrough: 600-mile charge in 9 mins, 20 year lifespan. Aman Tripathi. Interesting Engineering. August 1, 2024. Samsung’s 20-year-life EV battery runs 600 miles on 9-minute charge

China: Game changer solid electrolyte cuts solid-state battery price by 90%. Jijo Malayil. Interesting Engineering. July 8, 2024. China: Low-cost solid-state battery developed at 10% of current cost

Toyota confirms 750 mi range solid-state EV battery plans to catch up to Tesla, but when? Peter Johnson. Electrek. January 11, 2024. Toyota confirms solid-state EV battery plans with 750 mi range

The Advantages of Lithium-Ion Phosphate (LFP) Batteries for EVs. Eduardo Zepeda. June 4, 2024. Top Speed. The Advantages of Lithium-Ion Phosphate (LFP) Batteries for EVs

BYD exec predicts solid-state EV batteries will hit the market sooner than expected. Peter Johnson. September 27, 2024. Electrek. BYD exec says solid-state EV batteries will be here soon

Mercedes, Factorial unveil new all-solid-state battery that can extend EV range by up to 80%. Peter Johnson. September 10, 2024. Mercedes is getting new ultra-efficient all-solid-state EV batteries