Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re Going to Need More Lithium

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 136 posts

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#21

Post by mrob »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #18
mrob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but we can't be sure that no breakthrough in fuel cells or supercapacitors will make batteries obsolete.

We can't be sure that there won't be a breakthrough that will make all our phones and cars run on adenosine triphosphate, like everything else on this planet. But right now we have to work with what we have, and whatever knowledge and experience we thus gain will likely be useful post-unexpected-breakthroughs anyway.

According to Wikipedia: ATP + H2O → AMP + PPi ΔG° = −45.6 kJ/mol (−10.9 kcal/mol)

And at 507.18g/mol + 18g/mol for the water, that's only about 87J/g, which is worse than lithium ion batteries.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#22

Post by flexie »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #20

A novel idea for lithium is that much of our lithium recycling is done in other countries. If the government were to classify lithium as strategic security material, it would severely limit its exportation. Ergo retaining more of it domestically and encouraging domestic recycling. Lithium may arrive but it can never leave, so to speak.

An idea that the EU, China or any of your other large trading partners would never allow to fly for more than a split second without introducing reciprocal measures.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#23

Post by azernik »

zzzzzzzza wrote: post #7
QAPereo wrote: post #2

It might cost more, but it’s certainly abundant; we’re not going to run out of it. No I would even go so far as to say that a rise in the price of terrestrial lithium would be a good thing. In the short term it will hurt, but there’s a lot of runway in that graph before we hit serious scarcity. As the price rises I could honestly see someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos finally astroid money off the ground. I don’t h…

mining asteroids in our lifetimes would primarily be useful for harvesting raw materials for constructing things in space, not sending the materials back down to earth.

It may be useful for some raw materials - for example, osmium ($13,000/kg), rhenium ($2,750/kg), and iridium ($30,000/kg). All three of those are elements that are probably common in the Earth's mantle, but nowhere near the surface, and are mostly found in meteorites; all of them are used in high-performance alloys (high-temperature, corrosion-resistant, etc.)

Doubling the world production of any of these would greatly reduce the prices of aerospace engines and electronics (iridium is used for crucibles growing high-quality semiconductor crystals). And that's easy, because the quantities involved are so low - under 1 ton of osmium per year, 10 tons of iridium, and 40 tons of rhenium.

There are other materials like that. It's all about searching for the competitive advantage, the materials that can't be found on Earth in reasonable quantities. All the nickel and iron and titanium will indeed probably stay up for in-space use.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#24

Post by TeMPOraL »

mrob wrote: post #21
TeMPOraL wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't be sure that there won't be a breakthrough that will make all our phones and cars run on adenosine triphosphate, like everything else on this planet. But right now we have to work with what we have, and whatever knowledge and experience we thus gain will likely be useful post-unexpected-breakthroughs anyway.

According to Wikipedia: ATP + H2O → AMP + PPi ΔG° = −45.6 kJ/mol (−10.9 kcal/mol) And at 507.18g/mol + 18g/mol for the water, that's only about 87J/g, which is worse than lithium ion batteries.

In terms of energy density, maybe, but the magic of ATP is the whole process of creating it and the precision with which it is used to power things :).

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#30

Post by skrebbel »

mrob wrote: post #14
nsnick wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason lithium is used for batteries is that it is an excellent anode the lightest metal. Lithium will always be used for batteries that need to be light.

True, but we can't be sure that no breakthrough in fuel cells or supercapacitors will make batteries obsolete.

Yes we can, because "breakthroughs" don't happen over night. There's often at least a decade between the first lab result and wide industrialization of technologies like these. That means you can use today's lab results to predict the "breakthroughs" in 10 years.

I'm no expert whatsoever but if there's no promising lab results currently for lighter batteries than lithium, then I doubt they'll be replaced any time soon.

Post reply on HN