Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#31

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:28 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #7

another-one-off wrote: post #3

The Broken Hill Proprietary Company, BHP, comes from Broken Hill, Australia. It is one of the largest mining companies in the world. Now what is interesting about Broken Hill is I have it on reasonable authority that the area as a whole has had "20 years of remaining reserves" for the last 60 years, because the explorers only bother to go out and 'discover' new parts of the deposit when they get below 15-20 years of…

> High prices isn't a signal that we have run out, it is a signal that more mines are needed. It is likely the market will heed the signal. It is a signal that there is a high demand, and not enough supply (whether naturally or artificially -- e.g. diamonds) to meet that demand. That's it. Building more mines can only happen if the resources exist to mine. This idea that "the market" is a magic wand to wave at proble…

It's worth recalling the distinction between "reserves" and "resources": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_resource_classificatio...

In a very real sense, we don't know how many undiscovered resources are out there, we can only estimate them. And the estimates move over time with technological improvement.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#32

Post by heavenlyblue » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:28 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #25

agumonkey wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like over confidence in any resource access, that's probably what oil digger thought 100 years ago.

Doesn't this example go against your point? I've been hearing that we were nearing the end of the oil supply since I've been a kid but the date keeps being pushed back. As the demand for oil grows the price goes up and new methods to extract more oil from the ground become profitable. Now current projections seem to target the 2050s at the earliest.

Yeah. I mean if you started digging oil 100 years ago - you would probably be rich enough for another century today. Even if you don’t dig it anymore.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#33

Post by Robotbeat » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:29 PM UTC

xigma wrote: post #29

grecy wrote: post #27

> We use less than 3% cobalt in our batteries & will use none in next gen - Elon Musk https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1006968985760366592

Don't put your money on that.

The current 3% battery cobalt level already confirmed by 3rd party tear down analysis. "Next gen" could be years away, sure. But there are PLENTY of existing lithium battery chemistries which use no cobalt whatsoever.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#34

Post by xigma » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #25

agumonkey wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like over confidence in any resource access, that's probably what oil digger thought 100 years ago.

Doesn't this example go against your point? I've been hearing that we were nearing the end of the oil supply since I've been a kid but the date keeps being pushed back. As the demand for oil grows the price goes up and new methods to extract more oil from the ground become profitable. Now current projections seem to target the 2050s at the earliest.

This is also exactly what is holding back synthetic fuels from becoming profitable.

Fossil fuels will eventually lose out over synthetic fuels, but not until prices rise substantially.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#35

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:32 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #4

One of the more interesting aspects of modern global warfare is the fact that, should the world decide to stage another world war, pretty much everyone is going to run out of a lot of these strategic resources within a few months to years. This, plus the fact that nuclear warfare is going to be extremely limited due to lack of available weapons, and the virtual impossibility of invading a country you don't share a la…

> nuclear warfare is going to be extremely limited due to lack of available weapons

There's 15,000, which is easily enough to destroy a lot of cities and kill maybe half the world's population?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohasw...

I'll admit that we don't know what total warfare looks like in the 21st century when jets take a decade to build. I suspect it would look a lot more like Syria.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#36

Post by 3pt14159 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

nutjob2 wrote: post #26

It's peak cobalt! Just like peak oil.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then.

The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market will automatically solve. Quite the opposite. It will push up against it until there is sufficient political resistance to overcome market resources attempting to maintain the status quo. We have a real problem, but it isn't oil or cobalt.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#37

Post by xigma » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #33

xigma wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't put your money on that.

The current 3% battery cobalt level already confirmed by 3rd party tear down analysis. "Next gen" could be years away, sure. But there are PLENTY of existing lithium battery chemistries which use no cobalt whatsoever.

There's a big difference between 3% cobalt and no cobalt. Cobalt is important for safety, skimping on it to save some money is a big risk.

I'm not saying it won't happen, just that I wouldn't put money on it.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#38

Post by xigma » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #36

nutjob2 wrote: post #26

It's peak cobalt! Just like peak oil.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then. The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market…

Polluting the environment is damaging someone's property (private or state), for which they will eventually demand restitution. It's part of market forces.

Conversely, a certain amount of pollution/environmental destruction is a price people are willing to pay.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#39

Post by jchrisa » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #36

nutjob2 wrote: post #26

It's peak cobalt! Just like peak oil.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then. The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market…

The problem basically being what happens when you marry the logic of commodification (money, oil, grain, etc equally interchangeable) with the growth requirements of a debt-interest based economy. Either we have to make off-world into the new growth industry or financial capitalism will be the end of us.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#40

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

xigma wrote: post #38

3pt14159 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then. The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market…

Polluting the environment is damaging someone's property (private or state), for which they will eventually demand restitution. It's part of market forces. Conversely, a certain amount of pollution/environmental destruction is a price people are willing to pay.

What market forces allow them to convert their demands into action?