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

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#51

Post by lucaspiller »

EGreg wrote: post #27

This may be a silly question, but can't the lithium be recharged and reused? Or it's discarded and useless after a battery is tossed? Why mine more?

Typically when a lithium-ion battery is recycled some metal parts are extracted (the battery contains metal plates which are relatively easily separated), but the lithium usually is not as it’s a lot more complicated to extract. Economically it is a lot cheaper just to mine new lithium, so proper recycling facilities don’t often exist.

In the U.K. lithium-ion batteries are usually discarded in a landfill, and often treated as hazardous waste:

https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articles/dealing-waste-lit...

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#52

Post by sametmax »

jeffdavis wrote: post #25

This seems like a simple case of "demand increases, price increases in the short term, production increases, things balance out" -- a textbook example of how a market is supposed to work. Did I miss something?

Yes. You missed that it's an ad disguised as an article. Maybe someone need people to invest in lithium, or to make lithium based companies look good, or to divert attention to lithium from other things...

All in all, someone from an entity with a lot of money involved sent a PR guy with a story to tell to journalists. And the journalists were happy to write it down because it's interesting enough, serious enough, and doesn't require too much work.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#53

Post by tonyedgecombe »

sametmax wrote: post #52
jeffdavis wrote: post #25

This seems like a simple case of "demand increases, price increases in the short term, production increases, things balance out" -- a textbook example of how a market is supposed to work. Did I miss something?

Yes. You missed that it's an ad disguised as an article. Maybe someone need people to invest in lithium, or to make lithium based companies look good, or to divert attention to lithium from other things... All in all, someone from an entity with a lot of money involved sent a PR guy with a story to tell to journalists. And the journalists were happy to write it down because it's interesting enough, serious enough, an…

It clearly worked as there are several questions here about where to invest, we are easily manipulated aren't we.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#54

Post by andy_ppp »

kogepathic wrote: post #39
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global X Lithium ETF (NYSE:LIT) https://www.globalxfunds.com/funds/lit/

At 0.76% management fee and an average return over 5 years of 8.09%, you're better off just investing in an index ETF. Their own comparison shows the index matching or beating the Lithium ETF in every metric. * LIT since inception: 38.48% * Index over same period: 45.82% You also have zero diversification with a resource ETF. If you really want to buy into only Lithium then I won't try to talk you out of it. But mayb…

Seems like well researched advice to me, but I literally know nothing about investment. Still, seems like you were being helpful so I upvoted you.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#55

Post by NicoJuicy »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #53
sametmax wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You missed that it's an ad disguised as an article. Maybe someone need people to invest in lithium, or to make lithium based companies look good, or to divert attention to lithium from other things... All in all, someone from an entity with a lot of money involved sent a PR guy with a story to tell to journalists. And the journalists were happy to write it down because it's interesting enough, serious enough, an…

It clearly worked as there are several questions here about where to invest, we are easily manipulated aren't we.

I invested a year ago and it is a interesting resource. As all car companies need Lithium.

Renewable energy is also in the same ballpark

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#56

Post by dozzie »

azernik wrote: post #23
zzzzzzzza wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 great…

> It may be useful for some raw materials - for example, osmium ($13,000/kg), rhenium ($2,750/kg), and iridium ($30,000/kg).

Or tungsten, in the form of cylinders 6m long and 30cm in radius, transported gravitationally to their place of use.

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#57

Post by liotier »

jmnicolas wrote: post #32
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…

I don't see how asteroid mining can be viable economically. You still need an enormous quantity of petrol to send things in space and judging by the rarefaction of said petrol its price is bound to increase a lot.

> You still need an enormous quantity of petrol to send things in space

You need to think out of that box - I'm investing my savings in hevea plantations !

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#58

Post by DiabloD3 »

dozzie wrote: post #56
azernik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 great…

> It may be useful for some raw materials - for example, osmium ($13,000/kg), rhenium ($2,750/kg), and iridium ($30,000/kg). Or tungsten, in the form of cylinders 6m long and 30cm in radius, transported gravitationally to their place of use.

Rods from God?

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#59

Post by scarlac »

EGreg wrote: post #27

This may be a silly question, but can't the lithium be recharged and reused? Or it's discarded and useless after a battery is tossed? Why mine more?

Scale issue.

Example: My 15" 2017 laptop has a A Nissan Leaf battery is on the smaller side of what many believe is required for a mass adoption EV, yet still around 300 times larger. A small Tesla Model 3 is around 50 kWh[1], over 600 times larger. A large one at 75 kWh[1], over 900 times.

Here's an interesting infographic on Lithium-based batteries: https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla...

For old EV batteries it will be viable to reclaim metals, but regular consumer electronics waste is not enough to meet EV production.

[1] https://electrek.co/2017/08/08/tesla-model-3-battery-packs-5...

Re: We’re Going to Need More Lithium

#60

Post by zitterbewegung »

robbrown451 wrote: post #6

How sure are we that some new tech won't replace lithium ion batteries? I'd want to know that if I was investing in a mine.

A new tech may or may not replace lithium ion. But, I think that energy storage and logistics may change into a heirarchy.

The power company or energy creation things will be at the bottom. Battery's above that and then new things like super-capacitors or new types of batteries like software defined batteries. The competing technologies don't have to eliminate the other solutions they can work on side of them until they reach where they should be.

Post reply on HN